## Facts

- Search King, Inc., operated an internet search and web-hosting business and later ran an advertising brokerage service (PR Ad Network) that sold ad placements on websites with high Google PageRank scores.
- Google Tech., Inc., operated the Google search engine and generated “PageRank,” a 1-to-10 numerical rating representing Google’s assessment of a website’s relative significance in relation to search queries.
- PageRank values were generated by Google’s proprietary algorithm, using factors such as text matching and the quantity and quality of inbound links; website operators could not dictate their PageRank or guarantee inclusion in Google’s results.
- Search King’s PR Ad Network treated high PageRank as a selling point for advertising placements, linking its business model to Google’s ranking outputs.
- Google reduced the PageRank of Search King’s sites, which Search King alleged caused decreased traffic, loss of goodwill, and damage to existing contractual relationships with customers and affiliates.
- Search King sued for tortious interference with contractual relations under Oklahoma law, alleging Google intentionally and unjustifiably lowered PageRank to disrupt Search King’s contracts.

## Issues

1. Whether Google’s PageRank ratings are protected opinion-based speech under the First Amendment rather than verifiable statements of fact.
2. Whether a tortious interference claim may be based on Google’s lowering of PageRank, given constitutional protection for opinion and the requirement of wrongful interference under Oklahoma law.
3. Whether Search King had any legal entitlement to a particular PageRank or to continued inclusion and placement within Google’s search results.

## Decision

- The court granted Google’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The court held that PageRank is Google’s opinion about the relative significance of websites as related to search queries and is protected by the First Amendment.
- Because PageRank is not a provably false factual assertion, altering PageRank could not supply the wrongful conduct needed to support tortious interference liability.
- The court emphasized that Search King had no right to be listed in Google’s search engine or to receive any particular ranking.

## Legal Principles

- First Amendment limits tort liability for speech: only statements reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts, and capable of being proved true or false, may be actionable.
- A search engine’s ranking output that conveys an evaluative judgment—even if expressed numerically—can constitute protected opinion rather than a factual representation.
- Tortious interference requires improper (independently wrongful) interference; constitutionally protected expression cannot serve as the predicate wrongful act.
- Absent a specific entitlement, a website operator has no legal right to a particular search ranking or continued placement within a private search engine’s results.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Search King’s tortious interference claim because Google’s PageRank is a protected expression of opinion about website significance, and imposing tort liability for Google’s ranking decisions would conflict with the First Amendment; Search King had no enforceable right to any specific PageRank or inclusion in Google’s results.


Search King, Inc. v. Google Tech., Inc., 2003 WL 21464568 (W.D. Okla. 2003)