{"id":18527,"date":"2015-09-16T14:34:27","date_gmt":"2015-09-16T18:34:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blumenthals.com\/blog\/?p=18527"},"modified":"2015-09-16T15:16:21","modified_gmt":"2015-09-16T19:16:21","slug":"details-of-googles-robo-calling-lawsuit-against-false-against-local-lighthouse","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blumenthals.com\/blog\/2015\/09\/16\/details-of-googles-robo-calling-lawsuit-against-false-against-local-lighthouse\/","title":{"rendered":"Details of Google’s Robo Calling Lawsuit Against Local Lighthouse"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Screen
From the front page of the Lighthouse website<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Earlier today Google announced an educational and legal attack on deceptive robo calling <\/a>that has and continues to run rampant in the local space.<\/p>\n

Google mentioned in their blog today that they had filed a lawsuit. I have just read through the filing and it reads like one of my rants against this sort of thing. Maybe Google is serious this time around.<\/p>\n

The suit was filed in the US District Court for Northern District of California against Local Lighthouse<\/a>, a Tustin, CA\u00a0based local SEO.\u00a0The filing is a 3 part complaint for Federal Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition and False Designation and False Advertising.<\/p>\n

Here are some of the juiciest highlights from the filing detailing the tactics that we are all too familiar with:<\/p>\n

\"Screen<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
    \n
  1. Google is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant makes\u00a0extensive, unauthorized, and misleading use of the GOOGLE mark and other marks that include\u00a0 or incorporate the GOOGLE mark<\/li>\n
  2. That Defendant\u2019s sales \u00a0agents have made and continue to make various false and misleading claims during Defendant\u2019s \u00a0telemarketing calls to confuse consumers regarding the true source or nature of Defendant\u2019s services and the relationship between Google and Defendant. These include: (i) claims that Defendant\u2019s sales agents represent Google or are calling on behalf of Google; (ii) claims that \u00a0Defendant is affiliated with Google or has been contracted by Google to provide SEO services; \u00a0and (iii) other claims designed to obfuscate Defendant\u2019s identity and foster the mistaken belief \u00a0that Defendant and its services are approved, sponsored, or endorsed by Google.<\/li>\n
  3. That Defendant\u00a0 exploits such confusion to induce consumers to enter into contracts costing hundreds of dollars in\u00a0recurring monthly bills.<\/li>\n
  4. Evidence of such confusion is reflected in online consumer complaints and \u00a0pending lawsuits by consumers against Defendant. In addition, some consumers have directed their complaints regarding Defendant\u2019s sales practices at Google.<\/li>\n
  5. On July 29, 2014, Google sent Defendant a letter after receiving several\u00a0complaints regarding Defendant\u2019s telemarketing calls. Google told Defendant that consumers\u00a0had complained about incessant, unsolicited automated telephone calls, misrepresentations of\u00a0Defendant\u2019s relationship with Google, and false guarantees of first-page placement in GOOGLE\u00a0search results.<\/li>\n
  6. Google demanded that Defendant immediately cease all such actions and bring its\u00a0 practices into compliance with Google\u2019s Third Party Policy. Google also demanded a copy of\u00a0Defendant\u2019s sales script.<\/li>\n
  7. \u00a0On August 12, 2014, Defendant responded to Google\u2019s letter by denying that it\u00a0\u00a0used \u201crobocalls\u201d to market its services or that it harassed consumers with unwanted phone calls.\u00a0Defendant claimed that it would \u201ctake quite a thorough look through the Sales Force Compliance\u00a0to further our employee training to make sure all policies are being adhered to.\u201d<\/li>\n
  8. Defendant also\u00a0denied that it guaranteed certain placement in search engines. Despite these representations\u00a0however, Google received additional complaints.<\/li>\n
  9. On January 9, 2015, Google sent Defendant another letter informing Defendant\u00a0that it had received further complaints regarding Defendant\u2019s telemarketing calls, including\u00a0reports that Defendant\u2019s sales representatives were introducing themselves as \u201cGoogle Local\u00a0Listing representatives.\u201d<\/li>\n
  10. The letter demanded that Defendant stop such misrepresentations and\u00a0 bring its practices into compliance with Google\u2019s Third Party Policy.<\/li>\n
  11. Google continued to receive complaints from consumers indicating that\u00a0Defendant\u2019s sales representatives harassed them with multiple, unwanted telemarketing calls,\u00a0misrepresented Defendant\u2019s relationship with Google, and made false and misleading statements<\/li>\n
  12. \u00a0For example, Google is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that\u00a0Defendant\u2019s sales agents have made statements such as: \u201cWe\u2019re a Google subcontractor,\u201d \u201cwe\u2019re\u00a0working for Google,\u201d \u201cthe $100 fee [to initiate Defendant\u2019s services] goes to Google,\u201d and\u00a0Defendant\u2019s customers\u2019 webpages \u201cwill show up multiple times on the front page and get what\u2019s\u00a0called \u2018Front Page Domination.\u2019\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Here is the filing if you would like to read it yourself:\u00a0Google Complaint Against Lighthouse<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Not to pile on but their Yelp reviews<\/a> make for good reading as well.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Earlier today Google announced an educational and legal attack on deceptive robo calling that has and continues to run rampant in the local space. Google mentioned in their blog today that they had filed a lawsuit. I have just read through the filing and it reads like one of my rants against this sort of …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":262,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-google-plus"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blumenthals.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18527","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blumenthals.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blumenthals.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blumenthals.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/262"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blumenthals.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18527"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/blumenthals.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18527\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18541,"href":"https:\/\/blumenthals.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18527\/revisions\/18541"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blumenthals.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blumenthals.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blumenthals.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}