<\/p>
A federal judge dismissed Google\u2019s DMCA claims against SerpApi, ruling that blocking automated access to public search results isn\u2019t considered copyright circumvention when those results include no copyrighted content. <\/span><\/p> Google\u2019s December lawsuit accused SerpApi of violating the DMCA by bypassing SearchGuard, Google\u2019s anti-scraping technology, to collect and resell search results. SerpApi filed a motion to dismiss in February. Chief U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers approved this motion, resulting in the dismissal of both of Google\u2019s anti-circumvention claims.<\/span><\/p> The ruling focused on whether Google\u2019s SearchGuard protects a copyrighted work. Google\u2019s results primarily consist of public information, but they often include a Knowledge Panel that may contain licensed images.<\/p> The court determined that for results lacking copyrighted content, SearchGuard cannot regulate access since there is no protected work involved. These claims were dismissed without the opportunity to amend, effectively ending them.<\/p> For results containing licensed images, the court found that Google didn\u2019t demonstrate it used SearchGuard with the authorization of the copyright owners, as the law requires. These claims were dismissed but with permission to amend, allowing Google to attempt further action.<\/p> The court also rejected SerpApi\u2019s argument that Google didn\u2019t have the right to sue. SerpApi had argued that the DMCA protects only copyright owners, and since Google doesn\u2019t own its search results, it couldn\u2019t sue. However, the judge disagreed, clarifying that the law\u2019s protection isn\u2019t limited only to copyright owners.<\/p> SerpApi CEO Julien Khaleghy called the ruling a win for open access to public data and said the company will keep supporting the developers and businesses that rely on public search data:<\/p> \u201cWe\u2019re pleased that the court rejected Google\u2019s attempts to expand the DMCA to assert control over access to public pages. The internet\u2019s founding principle \u2013 open access to usable information \u2013 is essential to driving innovation and ensuring everyone benefits from the promise of data. SerpApi will continue supporting developers, AI companies, researchers, and businesses that rely on access to public search information.\u201d<\/p> <\/blockquote> Google has not commented on the ruling as of publication.<\/p> The ruling clarifies that scraping public results without copyrighted content isn\u2019t a DMCA violation in this case, and Google can\u2019t reassert that point.<\/p> Scraping plain search results is safer than pulling copyrighted extras, such as images in Knowledge Panels. This limits Google\u2019s ability to use the DMCA against SERP scraping, without ending the case.<\/p> Google has 21 days to amend its complaint. To keep the copyright claims alive, it will need to present facts that the court previously found missing, starting with the copyright owners\u2019 authorization to deploy SearchGuard.<\/p> The judge has paused discovery until Google makes the necessary amendments and the court rules on any new motion.<\/p> Additionally, SerpApi is facing a separate DMCA lawsuit from Reddit that raises similar questions about scraping publicly viewable pages. This order only addresses part of that issue.<\/p> Featured Image: beast01\/shutterstock<\/em><\/p> <\/div> News,Tools#Court #Dismisses #Googles #DMCA #Claims #SerpApi #sejournal #MattGSouthern1784681269<\/p> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A federal judge dismissed Google\u2019s DMCA claims against SerpApi, ruling that blocking automated access to public search results isn\u2019t considered copyright circumvention when those results include no copyrighted content. Google\u2019s December lawsuit accused SerpApi of violating the DMCA by bypassing SearchGuard, Google\u2019s anti-scraping technology, to collect and resell search results. SerpApi filed a motion to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":12190,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[2094,930,2025,20945,179,90,80,4088],"class_list":["post-12189","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-accessibility","tag-claims","tag-court","tag-dismisses","tag-dmca","tag-googles","tag-mattgsouthern","tag-sejournal","tag-serpapi"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/longzhuplatform.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12189","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/longzhuplatform.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/longzhuplatform.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/longzhuplatform.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/longzhuplatform.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12189"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/longzhuplatform.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12189\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/longzhuplatform.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/12190"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/longzhuplatform.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/longzhuplatform.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/longzhuplatform.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}What the Court Decided<\/h2>
What SerpApi Said<\/h2>
Why This Matters<\/h2>
Looking Ahead<\/h2>