Google accuses SEO biz Local Lighthouse of false claims, robo-calls

No one can guarantee a spot on the first page of results, says ad goliath

Google has taken exception to SEO outfit Local Lighthouse that apparently wrongly implied it has an affiliation with The Chocolate Factory.

The American web goliath has taken legal action against the smaller biz in the northern district of California, alleging Local Lighthouse uses nuisance calls to sell its services. Google accuses the Costa Mesa, California-based SEO gang of breaking laws on trademarks, unfair competition, and false advertising.

The whole business of gaming Google's engine attracts charlatans who reckon they can get your organization or project at the top of the first page of web search results. In its court paperwork [PDF] filed on Wednesday, Google claims:

Defendant's statements guaranteeing first-page placement in GOOGLE search results constitute false statements about Defendant's services because no SEO company, including Defendant, can guarantee such placement. These statements also constitute false statements about Google's services, because the necessary implication of such statements is that first-page placement in GOOGLE search results can be guaranteed through SEO methods.

But it's the alleged affiliation that has really upset Google:

Google is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant's sales agents have made and continue to make various false and misleading claims during Defendant's telemarketing calls to confuse consumers regarding the true source or nature of Defendant's services and the relationship between Google and Defendant. These include: (i) claims that Defendant's sales agents represent Google or are calling on behalf of Google; (ii) claims that Defendant is affiliated with Google or has been contracted by Google to provide SEO services; and (iii) other claims designed to obfuscate Defendant's identity and foster the mistaken belief that Defendant and its services are approved, sponsored, or endorsed by Google.

Google claims Local Lighthouse sales representatives were introducing themselves as "Google Local Listing representatives" – and had been using software to play pre-recorded messages to people in cold-calls, or in other words: robo-dialers. Google has asked for a jury trial.

In its Public Policy Blog, Google sets out its view on automated calling, saying it's illegal under US law, and that anyone using such technology, claiming to be from Google, is a fraud. The action against Local Lighthouse is a shot across the bows against companies that apparently take Google's name in vain and promise the impossible.

In the UK, the Information Commissioner's Office has taken action against nuisance callers, including one that was cold calling to sell cold-calling blockers.

One call-center boss told El Reg that although he'd not tried using robo-cold-callers, he was told by colleagues that automated systems are very effective, albeit less effective than a call center with real people. However, computers making pre-recorded calls appear to be more effective on a cost-for-cost basis.

He told us:

Opt-in [for cold calls] is a very vague term, but it means that someone has signed up for something (a Tesco card, for example) and not specifically asked for third-party calls to be excluded. So opt-in is actually a failure to opt out.

Many people believe that registering with TPS will avoid calls. Opt-in calls do not need to be cleared against the TPS database. The law's a mess.

Many companies will ignore the above rules and call random numbers or any data they can get their hands on. They will also often give misleading messages and withhold or fake CLI.

Our call-center pal does, however, think that there is a place for such direct selling:

If somehow we could get rid of these companies whilst keeping the honest ones, the process would be much more accepted.

The Google case may set a precedent for California, but while the UK communications watchdog Ofcom ran a consultation, we've not seen any plans for the Blighty. ®

Similar topics

Broader topics

Other stories you might like

  • Google has more reasons why it doesn't like antitrust law that affects Google
    It'll ruin Gmail, claims web ads giant

    Google has a fresh list of reasons why it opposes tech antitrust legislation making its way through Congress but, like others who've expressed discontent, the ad giant's complaints leave out mention of portions of the proposed law that address said gripes.

    The law bill in question is S.2992, the Senate version of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA), which is closer than ever to getting votes in the House and Senate, which could see it advanced to President Biden's desk.

    AICOA prohibits tech companies above a certain size from favoring their own products and services over their competitors. It applies to businesses considered "critical trading partners," meaning the company controls access to a platform through which business users reach their customers. Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta in one way or another seemingly fall under the scope of this US legislation. 

    Continue reading
  • Makers of ad blockers and browser privacy extensions fear the end is near
    Overhaul of Chrome add-ons set for January, Google says it's for all our own good

    Special report Seven months from now, assuming all goes as planned, Google Chrome will drop support for its legacy extension platform, known as Manifest v2 (Mv2). This is significant if you use a browser extension to, for instance, filter out certain kinds of content and safeguard your privacy.

    Google's Chrome Web Store is supposed to stop accepting Mv2 extension submissions sometime this month. As of January 2023, Chrome will stop running extensions created using Mv2, with limited exceptions for enterprise versions of Chrome operating under corporate policy. And by June 2023, even enterprise versions of Chrome will prevent Mv2 extensions from running.

    The anticipated result will be fewer extensions and less innovation, according to several extension developers.

    Continue reading
  • I was fired for blowing the whistle on cult's status in Google unit, says contractor
    The internet giant, a doomsday religious sect, and a lawsuit in Silicon Valley

    A former Google video producer has sued the internet giant alleging he was unfairly fired for blowing the whistle on a religious sect that had all but taken over his business unit. 

    The lawsuit demands a jury trial and financial restitution for "religious discrimination, wrongful termination, retaliation and related causes of action." It alleges Peter Lubbers, director of the Google Developer Studio (GDS) film group in which 34-year-old plaintiff Kevin Lloyd worked, is not only a member of The Fellowship of Friends, the exec was influential in growing the studio into a team that, in essence, funneled money back to the fellowship.

    In his complaint [PDF], filed in a California Superior Court in Silicon Valley, Lloyd lays down a case that he was fired for expressing concerns over the fellowship's influence at Google, specifically in the GDS. When these concerns were reported to a manager, Lloyd was told to drop the issue or risk losing his job, it is claimed. 

    Continue reading
  • UK competition watchdog seeks to make mobile browsers, cloud gaming and payments more competitive
    Investigation could help end WebKit monoculture on iOS devices

    The United Kingdom's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on Friday said it intends to launch an investigation of Apple's and Google's market power with respect to mobile browsers and cloud gaming, and to take enforcement action against Google for its app store payment practices.

    "When it comes to how people use mobile phones, Apple and Google hold all the cards," said Andrea Coscelli, Chief Executive of the CMA, in a statement. "As good as many of their services and products are, their strong grip on mobile ecosystems allows them to shut out competitors, holding back the British tech sector and limiting choice."

    The decision to open a formal investigation follows the CMA's year-long study of the mobile ecosystem. The competition watchdog's findings have been published in a report that concludes Apple and Google have a duopoly that limits competition.

    Continue reading
  • Google offers $118m to settle gender discrimination lawsuit
    Don't even think about putting LaMDA on the compensation committee

    Google has promised to cough up $118 million to settle a years-long gender-discrimination class-action lawsuit that alleged the internet giant unfairly pays men more than women.

    The case, launched in 2017, was led by three women, Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease, and Kelli Wisuri, who filed a complaint alleging the search giant hires women in lower-paying positions compared to men despite them having the same qualifications. Female staff are also less likely to get promoted, it was claimed.

    Gender discrimination also exists within the same job tier, too, the complaint stated. Google was accused of paying women less than their male counterparts despite them doing the same work. The lawsuit was later upgraded to a class-action status when a fourth woman, Heidi Lamar, joined as a plaintiff. The class is said to cover more than 15,000 people.

    Continue reading
  • Google recasts Anthos with hitch to AWS Outposts
    If at first you don't succeed, change names and try again

    Google Cloud's Anthos on-prem platform is getting a new home under the search giant’s recently announced Google Distributed Cloud (GDC) portfolio, where it will live on as a software-based competitor to AWS Outposts and Microsoft Azure Stack.

    Introduced last fall, GDC enables customers to deploy managed servers and software in private datacenters and at communication service provider or on the edge.

    Its latest update sees Google reposition Anthos on-prem, introduced back in 2020, as the bring-your-own-server edition of GDC. Using the service, customers can extend Google Cloud-style management and services to applications running on-prem.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022