## Facts

- Beverly Stayart alleged she was a well-known genealogy scholar and animal-rights advocate and that her name had commercial value as a search term.
- Google operated a search engine that indexed public web content and displayed advertising (including sponsored links) alongside search results.
- Stayart claimed Google’s features (including search suggestions and related-search prompts) associated her name with the phrase “bev stayart levitra,” which led users to advertisements for erectile-dysfunction drugs.
- The challenged association gained public attention after Stayart previously sued another search engine over the same suggested phrase.
- Stayart sued Google under Wisconsin statutory and common-law misappropriation theories, alleging Google used her name for advertising or trade without consent.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a plausible claim; Stayart appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that Google used Stayart’s name for advertising or trade in violation of Wisconsin misappropriation law.
2. Whether Wisconsin’s public-interest exception barred liability because the challenged phrase had become a matter of public interest.
3. Whether Wisconsin’s incidental-use exception barred liability because the alleged connection between Stayart’s name and Google’s advertising revenue was insubstantial.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the challenged phrase was a matter of public interest, which prevented it from supporting a Wisconsin misappropriation claim.
- The court held Stayart did not plead facts showing a substantial connection between Google’s use of her name and Google’s advertising revenue, triggering the incidental-use exception.
- Applying federal plausibility standards, the court concluded the allegations did not plausibly show actionable misappropriation.

## Legal Principles

- Under Wisconsin misappropriation law, use of a person’s name or likeness is not actionable when it relates to a matter of legitimate public interest.
- Liability is also limited by an incidental-use doctrine when the person’s identity has no substantial connection to the defendant’s commercial purpose.
- To survive Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must plead nonconclusory facts that plausibly show the defendant’s actionable commercial use of the plaintiff’s identity, not merely an incidental or algorithmic association.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that search-engine associations linking a person’s name to publicly prominent terms, without factual allegations showing targeted commercial exploitation, do not plausibly state misappropriation claims under Wisconsin law because the public-interest and incidental-use exceptions bar liability.


Stayart v. Google Inc., 710 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2013)