Libel Takedown Litigation

Attempt to Get Google to Vanish My Article About a Forged Court Order

The anatomy of two unfounded deindexing requests.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Since late 2016, I've been blogging about various fraudulent or otherwise suspect attempts to try to get material deindexed by Google, or removed by hosting companies. Many companies will deindex or remove material if they see a court order (even one not addressed to them) that finds the material to be libelous or otherwise illegal (whether criminal, tortious, or infringing some property right). But that has led some people to submit, for instance, forged court orders, hoping that the recipients won't check them. Back in April 2017, I blogged about two such incidents (paywall-free version); one of the incidents had led to a federal forgery prosecution:

Don Lichterman, who runs some small independent music labels (Sunset Recordings and some related companies), was sued for copyright infringement (Abshier v. Sunset Recordings)—and got so upset about what he saw to be libelous statements about him made as a result of the lawsuit that he forged a libel takedown order to send to WordPress, which hosted the blog that contained the statements. Lichterman was caught and prosecuted for forgery (U.S. v. Lichterman), and eventually pleaded guilty.

Several days ago, I learned that someone has been trying to get Google to deindex that very post—in this instance, not using forgery or outright fraud, but just theories of illegality that make no sense.

[1.] First, an entry at the Lumen Database, which archives such deindexing requests (sent to Lumen by Google), reports:

NOTICE TYPE: DMCA …

ORIGINAL URLS:

[1.] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2017/04/LichtermanComplaint.pdf

ALLEGEDLY INFRINGING URLS:

[1.] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/21/two-past-prosecutions-for-forged-court-orders-in-libel-takedown-cases/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e04d1a91d6dc

DESCRIPTION A group of trolls/rivals are continually targeting us and creating copied content to bully, defame, and threaten our business and staff. Also, there is same content has been posted on different sites. The respective links of the copied content are mentioned below.

That's a DMCA-based takedown request, apparently alleging that my article is somehow infringing on the Criminal Complaint that I had myself posted (and linked to from that article). The Criminal Complaint, of course, was drafted by the federal government, and is not protected by copyright; beyond that, my post hadn't even copied any material from the complaint. Regardless of how you read the takedown request, it's completely unfounded. Unsurprisingly, Google has not taken action based on it.

The request, by the way, was submitted under the name "Don Lichterman," but when I e-mailed Mr. Lichterman about this, he responded,

I do NOT have any idea what any of this means and I am NOT orchestrating it at all.

I know that my name being on certain court documents was an issue two years ago and I think there is an element that feels you circumvented it by adding a pdf.

But again, that's the corporate and legal people doing whatever ….

[2.] Then, two days later, someone submitted another takedown request (again, under the name "Don Lichterman"):

NOTICE TYPE: Court Order …

TARGETED URLS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/21/two-past-prosecutions-for-forged-court-orders-in-libel-takedown-cases/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e04d1a91d6dc

The attached supporting document was a redacted version of a 2016 court order in the U.S. v. Lichterman case, which says, in relevant part:

The Court has received the attached letter from the defendant. The letter states that certain documents should be filed under seal, but notes that the sentencing transcript is not filed under seal.

The Court was never asked to, and did not, file the sentencing transcript under seal. In any event, there was no basis to seal the sentencing transcript.

The Court did order the Pre-Sentence Report, and the Sentencing submissions fron the parties to the Court, to be filed under seal, and they were so filed.

The Court also told the parties to file their submissions in the record not under seal after redacting any personal identifying information.

The record reflects that the Government submission was so filed. Defense counsel should also ensure that its subnission is filed in the record not under seal, after redacting any personal identifying information.

There is no basis for any other action by the Court.

As best I can tell, the theory behind the deindexing request is that this order somehow requires that Mr. Lichterman's name be redacted from the Criminal Complaint, and that therefore my post, which links to a copy of the complaint, should be deindexed. But of course nothing in this order so requires: It appears that the court ordered that the presentence report remain sealed (as is normal with such reports), and required the removal of information from certain "sentencing submissions"—but it says nothing about the Criminal Complaint, which is a public document. (The Complaint was originally filed under seal, but was unsealed a few weeks later, as the prosecution began.)

Indeed, I just rechecked the file on PACER, the federal court record system, and the Criminal Complaint indeed remains an unredacted part of the public record. Again, unsurprisingly, Google hasn't taken action based on the deindexing request.

So it's actually pretty hard to dupe Google this way these days. But others might take these sort of deindexing requests, based on claims of copyright infringement and supposed sealing orders, seriously. I hope that this illustration can help warn people to view them much more skeptically—and if someone ever sends you (or has ever sent you) purported court orders requesting the removal of material hosted on your site, please let me know (at volokh at law.ucla.edu); I continue to be researching these sorts of practices.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

15 responses to “Attempt to Get Google to Vanish My Article About a Forged Court Order

  1. At this point I’m alot more worried about the mental stability of the Official Gatekeepers of Permitted Knowledge themselves than the random trolls that fling themselves upon the Gates.

    https://tinyurl.com/ybz9ujmk

    https://tinyurl.com/ybql2gyk

    https://tinyurl.com/y7lm3lwn

  2. I suppose I could DEMAND that this comment be deleted. It violates my copyright in this very comment!

      1. Well that’s … awkward. Who do I yell at to de-index Eddy’s comment which links to my (soon to be deleted) comment?

    1. Then step 2, I DEMAND that Google de-index both these comments, or at least this one, which I have not demanded to be deleted.

      I wonder where the Profit step comes in.

  3. OK, so those court orders are fake, but those Nigerian officials who are holding money for me are totally real, right?

  4. Eschew Alphabet products wherever possible. Become exceptional.

    1. But… according to the spam, I can make BIG MONEY working at home for Google! The fictitious poster’s ficticious sister makes $385 per hour, and the ficticious poster has a shiny new BMW earned in just 15 minutes per day! And you want me to pass up this GREAT opportunity?

  5. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here… http://www.2citypays.com

  6. How do people like this manage their lives in society?

    I mean at some point I’m sure he’s said, “Why do I have to pay a water bill? I don’t pay an air bill.”

  7. None of this is possible without copyright law (DMCA) or something like defamation law. Libertarians usually oppose the latter but are confused on the former. This whole episode should have been used to show why copyright law should be abolished.

    1. I think you may be the one confused, both by copyright law and by libertarians’ views on it (to the extent that any group as diverse as “libertarians” can be said to have a single view, anyway).

      Copyright is a straightforward extension of property rights to intangible work. Clearly, if you chop down a tree and carve it into a useful tool, you have a right to the fruits of your labor. If you create a sonnet or write a book, you have equal rights to the fruits of your labor. Copyright is a social compact that ensures you will get paid for your sonnet without needing to go to such extremes of trade secrecy that society as a whole suffers.

      Now, I will concede that DMCA and most modern implementations of the copyright concept are pretty far off the rail and should be thrown out. The social compact is deeply distorted when Disney Corp asserts copyrights over a mouse created almost a century ago. But that’s very different than the claim that the very concept of copyright law should be be abolished.

      1. One minor quibble: Trade secrets would be the alternative to utility patents, not to copyright.

  8. Email sent with a potential bogus takedown…or at least one that’s suspicious

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.