We Will Pay For a Legal SEO Opinion Letter
14 posts by 11 authors in Webmaster Central
Categories:
Greg MaynardLevel 1
Sign in to reply
Feb 10
I've read the FAQs and searched the help center. 
My URL is: http://www.sovereignfunding.com

WHAT WE REQUIRE (We Will Pay For a Legal SEO Opinion Letter)

We are looking for a well known US-Based SEO expert to provide us with their written expert opinion.  The letter should state (common sense to the members of this forum) what main things could affect search engine results. For example;

a) Search engine results can be affected by your geographic location,

b) Search engine results can be affected by your past searches,

c) Search engine results could be affected by spyware, viruses, Trojans etc.

d) Whether the individual doing the searches is personally logged into Google, not logged into Google, logged in from someone else's account or the computer is available to more than one individual who has previously done Google searches.

The opinion needs to be on company letterhead, signed with a short bio from the author and the writer needs to be a recognized a US-based SEO authority.

The opinion letter needs to provide easily verifiable 3rd party references (citations) for each and every statement regarding what affects search results.

The written opinion should be relatively short (less than 5/10 pages).

NON ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION (Why We Need This Opinion Letter)

Our company was accused back in late 2011 (by a significantly larger competitor) of manipulating Google search engine results.  The only piece of evidence provided by the competitor was a screen captures of Google search results from 2011.  

The competitor alleges that many of the Google search engine results were defamatory in nature and that the results were being redirected to various website’s that were owned and operated by our company.

We have never been able to duplicate the searches that the competitor states were defamatory and/or results that were redirected.  For that reason we have requested a copy of the data from the computer that was used to perform the Google searches in question.

The competitor who made the accusation against us has refused to provide any data from the computer(s ) that were used to perform the searches.

The court system is turning out to be very inexperienced on Internet search matters and it has become clear that we need to have an independent SEO expert prepare a document that independently verifies that a Google search result is dynamic in nature and can be affected by numerous factors potentially in a very short period of time.  

We also need to show that simply providing  a screen capture of some Google search results that are well over a year old is not enough information to be sued over and is definitely not enough information for us to defend ourselves against if the court decides that this case is worthy of a jury trial.

These accusations are frivolous and extremely expensive to argue against especially when the complainant is a significantly larger company who has much deeper pockets and the ability to spend substantially more on legal fees.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS (Filed Legal Statements along with the search results in question)

1) A copy of the search results that the competitor claim were manipulated by our company.  (See DOC1)

2) The competitor affidavit accusing us of manipulating the search results.  The competitor states that every time they click on the same search result a different site would appear. (See DOC2)

3) The competitor stating that they are "familiar with cookies, Internet temporary files, and user-identifying information on the computer systems of Plaintiff. Cookies are a file that indicates where a user has visited during a period of time, and these are constantly changing as a user searches on his or her computer. Internet temporary files cache information from web sites change on a minute-by-minute basis. Other user-identifying information on our systems constantly changes as well. To the best of my knowledge, none of those files or folders would have any bearing on the initial results of a Google search, such as I performed for this case. Whether or not I had visited other sites, or had cached information, I would have had the same initial results from my searches" (See DOC3)
Attachments (1)
Documents.zip
2 MB   View   Download
LysisTop Contributor
Sign in to reply
Feb 10
WAT is my opinion.

Here is my company letterhead.


3
7
Rise and ShineLevel 4
Sign in to reply
Feb 10
Wow that sounds like quiet a mess your in 

It really sucks that the legal system worldwide is open to nut bags , who are unhappy with their own performance can make up crazy stories to drag the innocent into such a mess.

Is another angle to stand behind the Google Quality Guidelines , and request that they FIRST prove that you in some way breeched them - and SECONDLY that you got away with it and didn't suffer a Google penalty as a result?

If they aren't alleging you hacked their server - then isn't the first place these guys should complain/sue Google ? for its Googles results they are unhappy with?
0
2
StevieD_WebTop Contributor
Sign in to reply
Feb 11
a letter is just about worthless because any written statement must be backed up during cross examination during depositions and ultimately the trial.

So what you really need is a live body willing to spend the next 2, 3 even 5 or 10 years of their life for the preliminary and trial phase of your case as well as any appeals.

(and there will be appeals)


A potential paid witness should perform a moderate level of due diligence and check out their client before hand and they will find nearly 400,000 backlinks according to Majestic  


including some real tasty (manipulative) backlinks.




Bottom line, your expert is going to need to dodge and weave on the stand with the best of them and I don't think it can be done.






2
2
Rise and ShineLevel 4
Sign in to reply
Feb 11
wow , 22k back links added in just the last 60 days 
0
2
I know nothingLevel 14
Sign in to reply
Feb 11
I'll do it for $999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999.00 a day.
0
6
Rise and ShineLevel 4
Sign in to reply
Feb 11
Its good to get an opening price , then you can shop around for a better offer :)
0
2
Barry SchwartzLevel 3
Sign in to reply
Feb 11
Any reason you didn't post the actual legal complaint? 
3
0
LysisTop Contributor
Sign in to reply
Feb 11
Because that would make things more clear, and we can't have that. We need supposition and blind support.
0
1
Michael MartinezLevel 11
Sign in to reply
Feb 11
Based on the documents in the attachment it appears to me that the PLAINTIFF is alleging defamation via manipulation of search results such that a user seeing the alleged defamatory listings is somehow sent through a confusing series of changing SERPs (which is an irrational and impossible scenario).

It would be unfortunate for the SEO industry if even only a state court where to accept these absurdities and validate them in a legal opinion that could be cited as a precedent in future cases.
2
0
MelPaxLevel 1
Sign in to reply
Feb 12
Not sure how the sarcasm added anything intelligent to the conversation. Use adult conversational techniques please. The condescending tone is not flattering.
1
0
AshleyTop Contributor
Sign in to reply
Feb 12
Mel - I don't think many folks are here for the flattery. We're here to be honest. 


Greg - SEO is opaque so any person's opinion doesn't do much/shouldn't hold up in court. 
If you want documentation, then roll up your sleeves and look through the countless documentation that GOOGLE has already provided for you. 

Not sure why you'd go to someone to speculate when Google publishes a lot of good info via their guidelines, webmaster tools, help center, FAQs, articles, blogs, forum posts, videos, etc. 
0
0
Feb 12
John Smith SSLevel 1 Here is some background information on the case: http://structuredsettlements.typepad.com/structured_settlements_4r/2011/07/who-owns-webuypaymentsnet-.html It appears the company is being sued for the webuypayments.net redirect scheme. They may have
Chris HuntLevel 11
Sign in to reply
Feb 13
IANAL, but it seems to me that the Plaintiff in this case should have to prove
 
(a) That the behaviour they describe actually did take place
 
(b) That it conforms to the legal definition of defamation
 
(c) That your company is responsible for doing something to bring about whatever-it-is they're complaining about.
 
It sounds like they'd struggle to do any of those.
0
0