Man Googles himself, finds an entry in which his name appears frighteningly close to the words “indecency with a child.” He sues Google for $19.2 trillion. Sixth Circuit: You lose, but, on the plus side, all of the Google hits about your name now concern this litigation.
The odd part is that the phrase “indecency with a child” had nothing to do with they guy. A website listed his name, and then another entry about “indecency with a child.” The Google search made it look like he was a part of that story. So he sues Google. Loses.
O’Kroley raises several other points on appeal, ranging from the meritless to the frivolous. On the meritless side:
He “requests a court appointed attorney,” Appellant’s Br. 13, but he has not shown the “exceptional circumstances” needed to appoint one, Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 606 (6th Cir. 1993).
On the frivolous side: He asks us to strike down the Communications Decency Act (“as a simple matter of logic”); he claims violations of the Eighteenth Amendment (the former prohibition on alcohol repealed long before the Internet came into being); he asks us to add Georgetown University as a defendant (because it might be using this case in its “Robots and Law” class); and he contends the judges below were “biased” against him (because “[t]hey may be ignorant about the English language”). Appellant’s Br. 11–16. To restate some claims is to reject them. * * *
In most respects, O’Kroley didn’t accomplish much in suing Google and the other defendants. He didn’t win. He didn’t collect a dime. [I added paragraph breaks. — Dave]
Well, at least his search results look better: