Removing Court Case from Google Search

[quincy]

Raises hand!

Thanks to everyone who weighed in with SEO advice. One of my challenges is that in a Google search, no one else has my name--it's unique because it's a hyphenation of two uncommon last names. ...

I have scheduled a lunch for next Tuesday and will take the questions posed here to see if there is any Google "insider" information that can help you in your quest to get the court case bumped from the pages of Google on a search of your name, susanna. The most I can promise is that I will have a belly full of Korean food by Tuesday afternoon.

 

[susannaCO]

I have scheduled a lunch for next Tuesday and will take the questions posed here to see if there is any Google "insider" information that can help you in your quest to get the court case bumped from the pages of Google on a search of your name, susanna. The most I can promise is that I will have a belly full of Korean food by Tuesday afternoon.

That's very generous of you, Quincy! Thanks and enjoy that lunch

 

[quincy]

That's very generous of you, Quincy! Thanks and enjoy that lunch

Not a problem.

And I will.

 

[susannaCO]

Quincy, any updates after your lunch?

 

[Just Blue]

I heard he has horrible acid reflux!!!

JK Quincy!!

 

[quincy]

Quincy, any updates after your lunch?

Oops. I promised to get back here, didn't I? Sorry, susannaCO.

But, no, I really learned nothing that can help you. In fact, Google employees experience the same difficulties in removing unwanted links as you. No magic formula, or law, exists (yet) in the US to have court records removed (absent a few special circumstances).

You can continue to try to bounce the link off page one as has been recommended by others, or you can discuss with an attorney in your area a privacy action over the debt information in the court case which, in essence, violates the FCRA's time limit for reporting old debts. This could potentially get your name redacted from the case. But, as mentioned earlier, this could be an exercise in futility.

No acid reflux, by the way. My stomach is extremely tolerant of spicy foods.

 

[susannaCO]

Thanks, quincy--I appreciate all your efforts in advising us on what's doable. I'll pursue all options & if I have any success on the legal side, I'll report back here so others can benefit.

Hope you had a good lunch--so glad you had zero digestive issues

 

[quincy]

Thanks, quincy--I appreciate all your efforts in advising us on what's doable. I'll pursue all options & if I have any success on the legal side, I'll report back here so others can benefit.

Hope you had a good lunch--so glad you had zero digestive issues

You're welcome, susannaCO. It would be nice if you can report back if you have success in getting the case removed or your name redacted from it.

As a (perhaps interesting) sort of off-topic aside, the state of California has a relatively new law that addresses online publications by minors, providing minors with an ability to have material they previously posted removed from its online location. The "Privacy Rights for California Minors in the Digital World" law, commonly referred to as the "Eraser Law," is found under California's Business and Professions Code, Sections 22580-22582. Here is a link: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=22001-23000&file=22580-22582

The law is problematic in many ways, and potentially unconstitutional, and it is not a cure-all. I think it will be interesting to see how the law is enforced and how it is treated in the courts.

 

[Just Blue]

Oops. I promised to get back here, didn't I? Sorry, susannaCO.

But, no, I really learned nothing that can help you. In fact, Google employees experience the same difficulties in removing unwanted links as you. No magic formula, or law, exists (yet) in the US to have court records removed (absent a few special circumstances).

You can continue to try to bounce the link off page one as has been recommended by others, or you can discuss with an attorney in your area a privacy action over the debt information in the court case which, in essence, violates the FCRA's time limit for reporting old debts. This could potentially get your name redacted from the case. But, as mentioned earlier, this could be an exercise in futility.

No acid reflux, by the way. My stomach is extremely tolerant of spicy foods.

I shall never trust the rumors again!!

 

[quincy]

I shall never trust the rumors again!!

Ha. Yes. Rumors of any acid reflux have been grossly exaggerated.

If I were to have had any digestive issues at all, they almost certainly would have surfaced years ago when I dined on some questionable "delicacies" overseas. I have often thought that dishes like rats and eyeballs are served only to foreigners, while the country's residents sit back chuckling quietly to themselves.

 

[susannaCO]

Quincy, I just found this case summary on a law blog & wondered if this might be a good path for me to try:

Beverly Hills Small Claims Court forces Google to remove documents from their Web database, including a Public Domain Government Document on a Government Website (namely a US Bankruptcy Court Order)

In a novel twist, a plaintiff, Mark Anderson, convinced the Beverly Hills Small Claims Court to direct Google to remove a number of documents that mention him from the Google index, including newspaper articles and public documents such as a U.S. Bankruptcy Court order.

http://lawblog.justia.com/2006/02/08/beverly-hills-small-claims-court-forces-google-to-remove-documents-from-their-web-database-including-a-public-domain-government-document-on-a-government-website-namely-a-us-bankruptcy-court-order/

And...

To your point about using the FCRA, I found this article: http://blogs.creditcards.com/2014/05/is-google-a-credit-reporting-agency.php

 

[Just Blue]

Ha. Yes. Rumors of any acid reflux have been grossly exaggerated.

If I were to have had any digestive issues at all, they almost certainly would have surfaced years ago when I dined on some questionable "delicacies" overseas. I have often thought that dishes like rats and eyeballs are served only to foreigners, while the country's residents sit back chuckling quietly to themselves.

Notsolil'blu wants to try Deep Fried Tarantula. I told her to go whatever country that they make it in. If she would like me to fry a huge spider....She will first have to eat her veggies. Quid Pro Quo.

 

[quincy]

Quincy, I just found this case summary on a law blog & wondered if this might be a good path for me to try:

Beverly Hills Small Claims Court forces Google to remove documents from their Web database, including a Public Domain Government Document on a Government Website (namely a US Bankruptcy Court Order)

In a novel twist, a plaintiff, Mark Anderson, convinced the Beverly Hills Small Claims Court to direct Google to remove a number of documents that mention him from the Google index, including newspaper articles and public documents such as a U.S. Bankruptcy Court order.

http://lawblog.justia.com/2006/02/08/beverly-hills-small-claims-court-forces-google-to-remove-documents-from-their-web-database-including-a-public-domain-government-document-on-a-government-website-namely-a-us-bankruptcy-court-order/

And...

To your point about using the FCRA, I found this article: http://blogs.creditcards.com/2014/05/is-google-a-credit-reporting-agency.php

It appears Mark Anderson sued over copyright violations. The material appearing on the blog linked to by Google appears to have remained elsewhere online. But I have only briefly reviewed this.

But DMCA takedown notices have been used in the past for reasons other than those intended under the Copyright Act - generally without success - so this is always something you can explore with an attorney in your area. I do not see that your situation fits the facts presented in Mark Anderson's case, however.

The Justia Law Blog commentary speaks to what I mentioned earlier about challenging the link to the court case based on an FCRA violation - but to my knowledge this has not been done in the US yet and I am not sure it can be done in the US, at least not without a lot of money to fund what would no doubt be a protracted legal action. There are constitutional issues that must be addressed in the US that the EU does not have, so it will more than likely take Congress to decide that bankruptcy cases should be protected from online publication.


To Blue: Deep-fried tarantulas, huh? Lil'Blu will not only need to eat her vegetables, she will need to pack for the warm, wet weather in Cambodia.

I discovered that chocolate-coating things like ants and grasshoppers improve the "ick" factor a bit. Not enough, but a bit.

 

[Just Blue]

It appears Mark Anderson sued over copyright violations. The material appearing on the blog linked to by Google appears to have remained elsewhere online. But I have only briefly reviewed this.

But DMCA takedown notices have been used in the past for reasons other than those intended under the Copyright Act - generally without success - so this is always something you can explore with an attorney in your area. I do not see that your situation fits the facts presented in Mark Anderson's case, however.

The Justia Law Blog commentary speaks to what I mentioned earlier about challenging the link to the court case based on an FCRA violation - but to my knowledge this has not been done in the US yet and I am not sure it can be done in the US, at least not without a lot of money to fund what would no doubt be a protracted legal action. There are constitutional issues that must be addressed in the US that the EU does not have, so it will more than likely take Congress to decide that bankruptcy cases should be protected from online publication.


To Blue: Deep-fried tarantulas, huh? Lil'Blu will not only need to eat her vegetables, she will need to pack for the warm, wet weather in Cambodia.

I discovered that chocolate-coating things like ants and grasshoppers improve the "ick" factor a bit. Not enough, but a bit.

I have actually tried the chocolate ants and grasshoppers. Kinda gross and crunchy. But sweet. Taste better going down than on the return cycle. (We really need a "gross" emo ) (best I could do)

 

[quincy]

I have actually tried the chocolate ants and grasshoppers. Kinda gross and crunchy. But sweet. Taste better going down than on the return cycle. (We really need a "gross" emo ) (best I could do)

As an additional note on Mark Anderson: Anderson apparently sued a fellow named Joe Gallant, who had (apparently among other things) created a blog using Anderson's name. Google's involvement apparently resulted from court findings in the Anderson/Gallant case which required Gallant remove his postings. Again, I am writing this after only a brief review and my comments might have to be revised when I have more time to read more (and when I have had more coffee, hold all chocolate ants ).

Not that I think anything in the Anderson action can be used to help you, susannaCO. I don't see much in common other than the common desire to have Google remove links.