1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-14159-ROSENBERG/MAYNARD 

DJ LINCOLN ENTERPRISES, INC. ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) TRIAL BY JURY

 ) IS DEMANDED

 ) 

GOOGLE, LLC ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

 Plaintiff, DJ Lincoln Enterprises, Inc. (“Lincoln” or “Plaintiff”), by counsel, 

pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Order 

entered January 19, 2021 [ECF No. 43], files the following Second Amended Complaint 

against defendant, Google, LLC (“Google”). 

 Plaintiff seeks (a) compensatory damages, statutory damages (threefold the actual 

damages sustained), and punitive damages in the sum of $90,000,000.00, plus (b) 

prejudgment interest on the principal sum awarded by the Jury at the rate of 6.77 percent 

per year pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 55.03, (c) a reasonable attorney’s fee, (d) postjudgment 

interest, and (e) court costs – arising out of Google’s acts of racketeering activity in 

violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962 and the Florida RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt 

Organizations) Act and the provisions of Fla. Stat, § 772.103 (Civil Remedies for Criminal 

Practices), violations of the Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. 

§ 501.201 et seq., fraud in the inducement and actual fraud, and constructive fraud. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 1 of 46
2 

I. INTRODUCTION

 1. Google is a billion-dollar racketeer that discriminates against conservatives 

and defrauds consumers because of their ideology and political views. Virtually every 

representation published by Google on the Internet and conveyed to consumers like 

Lincoln is deceptive and deceitful. In its “Ads” policies, for instance, Google represents 

that it wants to “support a healthy digital advertising ecosystem—one that is trustworthy 

and transparent, and works for users, advertisers, and publishers”; that it values “honesty 

and fairness” and “diversity and respect for others”; that it does not allow “the promotion 

of products or services that are designed to enable dishonest behavior”; that it does not 

allow “ads or destinations that display shocking content or promote hatred, intolerance, 

discrimination, or violence ... bullying or intimidation of an individual or group”; that “ad 

destinations must offer unique value to users and be functional, useful, and easy to 

navigate”; and that “Google Ads enables businesses of all sizes, from around the world, to 

promote a wide variety of products, services, applications, and websites on Google and 

across our network.” [https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/6008942?hl=en

(emphasis in original).1 None of these representations is true. As this case demonstrates, 

Google is untrustworthy, opaque, dishonest, unfair, manipulative, and deceptive in the 

operation of its core property, Search. 

1

 In spite of its alleged “policies”, Google monetizes videos that contain 

defamation, insulting words, hateful content, bullying, and intimidation. [See, e.g.,

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8Cl9QaRtuW9CNjP7pP4BBQ]. In spite of its 

stated policies, a search for “murder videos” yields 73,200 results, including the murder of 

a news reporter in 2015. [https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/02/20/youtubeshould-remove-murder-videos-says-slain-journalists-father/4805170002/]. In spite of its 

stated policy concerning “Adult Content”, a search for “sex toys” returns 127,000,000 

results and a search for “porn” returns over 2,000,000,000 hits. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 2 of 46
3 

 2. Google is part of an international technology and social media conglomerate 

(a RICO enterprise associated-in-fact) that engages in interstate commerce by the use of 

one or more instrumentalities, including, but not limited to, the Internet, computers and 

telephone, mails and facsimile. Through a pattern of racketeering activity, involving acts 

of wire fraud in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1343, Google has maintained, directly or 

indirectly, an interest in the enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, 

interstate commerce. While associated with the enterprise, Google conducted or 

participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a 

pattern of racketeering activity. Between 2014 and 2020, Google has engaged in activity 

that is prohibited by Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). 

 3. Google’s ongoing and continuous acts of wire fraud, described below, are 

part of its regular way of doing business. 

 4. Lincoln is one of Google’s victims. There are perhaps millions of others 

across the United States and around the World who suffered a similar fate: conservative 

businesses mislead into investing in their businesses believing that Google does not 

discriminate based on ideology. Google’s misrepresentations and concealment (described 

below) caused Lincoln to invest millions of dollars in developing a website. It was nothing 

but a pipedream. Lincoln was injured in its business, property and reputation by Google’s 

fraud. Lincoln brings this action (a) to recover money damages for injury to its business, 

(b) to impose reasonable restrictions on Google’s future activities, including Google’s use 

of Search to discriminate against conservatives, (c) to enjoin Google from manipulating 

Search, and (d) to order the dissolution or reorganization of Google so as to prevent or 

restrain Google from violating Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 3 of 46
4 

II. PARTIES 

 5. Plaintiff, Lincoln, is a Florida corporation with a principal office in Port St. 

Lucie, Florida, within the Fort Pierce Division of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida. Lincoln is a closely-held, family-owned business. Lincoln’s 

President and CEO is Darren R. Lincoln (“Darren”) and its Vice-President is his wife, 

Jennifer E. Lincoln (“Jennifer”). Incorporated in 1996, Lincoln operated an extremely 

successful publishing, marketing and sales company in Florida for many years. Between 

2014 and 2019, Lincoln operated a website, https://seniorcare.care/, that connected 

caregivers and assisted living professionals with seniors and families in need. 

 6. Defendant, Google, is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered 

in Mountain View, California. Google is a wholly-owned subsidiary of XXVI Holdings, 

Inc. Google is essentially at home in Florida. It transacts continuous and systematic 

business in Florida pursuant to a certificate of authority issued by the Florida Department 

of State (Document # M17000009239). Google maintains its registered agent in 

Tallahassee, Florida. Google, Inc. first registered to transact business in Florida over six 

(6) years ago in 2013. In 2017, Google, Inc. converted its corporate form to a limited 

liability company, Google. 

 7. Google owns and operates a wide-range of products and platforms, 

including its flagship “Search” engine, the “Chrome” web browser, “Gmail” service, 

“Android” mobile operating system, “YouTube” video sharing/content development 

platform, “Adsense” and “Adwords” online advertisement services, “Drive” cloud storage, 

“Docs” office suite, Google “Books”, “Translate” language translation service, Google 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 4 of 46
5 

“News”, Google “Maps”, Google “Earth”, and Google Hardware (including Chromebook, 

Nest and Pixel smartphones) [https://about.google/products/]: 

Google’s businesses generate most of their billions in yearly revenue through advertising, 

app sales, in-app purchases, digital content products, hardware, and licensing and service 

fees. [https://fourweekmba.com/how-does-google-make-money/]. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 5 of 46
6 

 8. Google is a monopoly. It controls life on and off the Internet. Google 

created, developed and operates products and platforms that dictate the conduct, course, 

success and failure of modern business. Google spies on its users with “cookies”, 

“spiders”, “crawlers”, artificial intelligence, and other mathematical artifices, designed to 

collect and exploit every byte of raw data. Simply put, Google is engaged in “surveillance 

capitalism”. [https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/03/harvard-professor-sayssurveillance-capitalism-is-undermining-democracy/]. Google also intermeddles in 

presidential politics [see, e.g., https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/forming-a-caseagainst-google-how-democrat-tulsi-gabbard-is-taking-on-the-tech-giant] and all aspects of 

public and health policy. [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/this-is-censorshipgoogle-suspends-evangelical-churchs-app-for-violating-coronavirus-sensitive-eventspolicy (“‘This is censorship’: Google suspends evangelical church’s app for violating 

coronavirus ‘sensitive events’ policy”); https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tuckercarlson-big-tech-is-using-coronavirus-to-increase-its-power-and-the-us-is-becomingmore-like-china (“Tucker Carlson: Big Tech is using coronavirus to increase its power 

- and the US is becoming more like China”)]. There is no aspect of modern society that 

is not controlled and usurped by Google, for Google. Googles uses its products to control 

speech and association, and to silence and crush those with whom it disagrees. Tens of 

millions of Floridians have an account with Google and tens of millions use one or more 

Google products in their daily lives and businesses. Everyone is at risk. 

 9. Google built Search to attract people to Google to acquire “things that 

matter in their lives”. [https://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/google1.htm]. 

Google Search is the most popular and widely used search engine in the world. Google 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 6 of 46
7 

controls more than seventy percent (70%) of the web search engine market. Websites get 

most of their search engine traffic from Google. [https://www.ecloudbuzz.com/mostpopular-google-products-services/]. But that’s just the beginning. If you include other 

Google functions, like image search or Google Maps or properties such as YouTube, 

Google effectively holds over ninety percent (90%) market share of all Internet (online), 

mobile, and in-app searches. [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-chart-reveals-googlestrue-dominance-over-the-web/; https://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-retainsmore-than-90-of-market-share-2018-4; https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-marketshare;]. 

 10. YouTube operates the largest public square and forum in the entire World 

for the general public to participate in video-based speech, expression and association. 

Indeed, YouTube is the largest forum for video-based speech by members of the general 

public in the history of the Mankind. The total number of people who currently use the 

YouTube platform exceeds 1.9 billion. More than 30 million members of the general 

public visit the platform every day. More video content has been uploaded to YouTube by 

public users than has been created by the major U.S. television networks in 30 years. 

[https://www.statista.com/topics/2019/youtube/]. 

 11. Since its inception, Google has represented to the public that it is a defender 

and protector of free speech. [https://abc.xyz/investor/founders-letters/2004-ipo-letter/

(“Throughout Google’s evolution as a privately held company, we have ... emphasized an 

atmosphere of creativity and challenge, which has helped us provide unbiased, accurate 

and free access to information for those who rely on us around the world.”)]. Google 

solicited and encouraged businesses, like Lincoln, to join Google and to purchase and use 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 7 of 46
8 

its products, services and platforms to freely speak, express, publish, exchange ideas, 

promote and market their businesses. Google said nothing about censorship. Indeed, 

Google concealed from the public, from regulators at the Federal Trade Commission 

(“FTC”), from the Department of Justice, and from Congress an institutional bias and 

systemic predilection to censor conservative viewpoints. 

 12. Beginning in 2018, whistleblowers at Google began to leak internal 

documents that demonstrate beyond cavil that Google is – contrary to its sworn testimony 

before Congress – engaged in censorship of conservatives. One of the first censorship 

manifestos to leak was Google’s 85-page “Good Censor”: 

[https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/09/the-good-censor-leaked-google-briefingadmits-abandonment-of-free-speech-for-safety-and-civility/; 

https://vdare.com/filemanager_source/The-Good-Censor-GOOGLE-LEAK.pdf]. In June 

2019, Project Veritas revealed Google’s secret plans to prevent a “Trump situation” in 

2020. https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-revealsgoogle-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/]. In June 2019, a 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 8 of 46
9 

whistleblower at Google also leaked a document that shows a Google data scientist and 

member of Google’s “transparency-and-ethics” group calling conservative and libertarian 

commentators, including Jordan Peterson, Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro, “nazis”. 

[https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/25/breaking-new-google-document-leakeddescribing-shapiro-prager-as-nazis-using-the-dogwhistles/]. In the wake of two mass 

shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, nonpartisan analysis confirms that Google 

is overwhelmingly biased in favor of left-leaning media sources, such as CNN, the New 

York Times and the Washington Post. [https://www.allsides.com/blog/audit-googleheavily-favors-cnn-and-left-media-mass-shooting-coverage; 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w7r4LZY4R0 (“Studies Prove Google Is Swinging 

2020 AGAINST Trump, Biased Against Conservatives”)]. In August 2019, a 

whistleblower turned over 950 pages of documents and laptop to the United States 

Department of Justice. [https://saraacarter.com/exclusive-google-insider-turns-over-950-

pages-of-docs-and-laptop-to-doj/ (“A former Google insider claiming the company created 

algorithms to hide its political bias within artificial intelligence platforms – in effect 

targeting particular words, phrases and contexts to promote, alter, reference or manipulate 

perceptions of Internet content – delivered roughly 950 pages of documents to the [DOJ] 

Friday.”); https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/08/14/google-machine-learning-fairnesswhistleblower-goes-public-says-burden-lifted-off-of-my-soul/ (“Project Veritas has 

released hundreds of internal Google documents leaked by Vorhies. Among those 

documents is a file called “news black list site for google now.” The document, according 

to Vorhies, is a “black list,” which restricts certain websites from appearing on news feeds 

for an Android Google product ... Another newly published document titled “Fringe 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 9 of 46
10 

ranking/classifer: Defining channel quality” lists an example ranking of various news sites, 

including CNN and FOX News. A document titled “Fake news & other fringe: Trashy 

recap” reveals that videos are rated by multiple “human raters.”); 

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/08/15/robert-epstein-googles-leaders-have-beenperjuring-themselves-before-congress/ (“They actually do reranking of search results to 

suit their needs, political and otherwise. It’s called the ‘Twiddler’ system’ ... One of the 

documents is called the ‘Twiddler Quickstart Guide,’ and it explains how various teams 

have access to very specialized software that allows them to change how certain kinds of 

content get ranked in search results.”)]. 

 13. Between 2016 and 2018, Lincoln communicated with Google, its agents and 

outside engineers and consultants to whom Lincoln was directed2

 over the Internet in blogs 

and in chats. This second amended complaint describes the substance of the specific 

representations by Google that induced Lincoln to alter its website at great cost and expense 

and to take other action in reasonable reliance on Google’s promise that the action would 

improve Lincoln’s Search results. Lincoln trusted Google, believed Google, embraced 

Google, and made Google and its products a part of Lincoln’s business. 

2

 There were many persons outside Google associated with the enterprise 

with whom Lincoln communicated, including, without limitation, Godaddy.com, 

Bernstein-Rein (b-r.com) and Ucodice.com. These third-party outside vendors and digital 

marketing agencies shared a common purpose with Google, which was to fraudulently 

induce Lincoln to make changes to its website and business model, so as to “optimize” 

Lincoln’s Search results on Google. Google promoted these companies by giving them a 

“Google Partner Badge”, so victims like Lincoln would believe that the outside vendors 

had special knowledge, skills and experience with Google products, and were trustworthy. 

[https://www.google.com/partners/agency?id=5087479293]. Upon information and 

belief, the outside vendors with whom Lincoln dealt were compensated in money or 

property for promoting Google’s business and products. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 10 of 46
11 

 14. In truth, as Lincoln discovered in 2018, Google is a fraud. Google 

intentionally and systematically uses its products and platforms indiscriminately as 

weapons to punish voices and views, like Lincoln’s, with which Google disagrees. Google 

regularly and systematically uses its products and platforms to promote and amplify the 

left-wing, liberal voices, views, speech and agendas with which it agrees. Google and its 

founders, directors and officers are engaged in a worldwide campaign to ban conservatives 

from the use and benefits of Google products and platforms, and to infringe on 

conservatives rights of free speech and association guaranteed by the First Amendment. 

Reported examples of Google’s intentional misconduct are now legion, e.g.: 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/10/trump-google-youtubesearch-results-biased-against-republicans-conservatives-column/1248099002/; 

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/google-staffers-considered-burying-conservativenews-outlets-but-tech-giant-claims-it-never-happened; 

https://dailycaller.com/2018/02/27/google-youtube-southern-poverty-law-centercensorship/; 

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2017/08/19/propublica-working-google-documenthate-threatens-conservative-bloggers/; 

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-agrees-to-pay-11-

million-to-owners-of-suspended-adsense-accounts/; 

https://www.lifenews.com/2019/02/22/conservative-leaders-want-investigationof-google-facebook-and-twitter-over-pro-life-censorship/; 

https://gizmodo.com/google-blacklists-natural-news-the-webs-leading-author1792680935; 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 11 of 46
12 

https://www.vox.com/2017/6/27/15878980/europe-fine-google-antitrust-search; 

https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/2/20751822/google-employee-dissentjames-damore-cernekee-conservatives-bias. 

 15. Lincoln is a victim of Google’s corrupt, fraudulent, unconstitutional, and 

anti-American business practices. Google lied to Lincoln. In emails and chats between 

2016 and 2018, Google and its associates fraudulently induced Lincoln at great cost and 

expense to conform the Senior Care website to Google’s standards, so that, according to 

Google, Lincoln could enjoy the benefits of Google Search. Throughout 2016, 2017 and 

into 2018, Google represented to Lincoln that it (Google) treated all businesses equally and 

that it did not discriminate based upon ideology or political association. These 

representations were false. Google fraudulently concealed from Lincoln the fact that 

Google intended to violate Lincoln’s First Amendment Rights and interfere with Lincoln’s 

business. At the same time Google told Lincoln to make alterations to its website, Google 

concealed from Lincoln the fact that Google had Lincoln on a “blacklist”. Google 

intentionally segregated Lincoln to the back of the proverbial Search bus because of 

Lincoln’s conservative views, including Lincoln’s unwavering support of President 

Trump. Google discriminated against Lincoln because Lincoln is owned and operated by 

conservative Republicans. 

 16. Google’s pattern of fraudulent and discriminatory acts and practices against 

Lincoln caused Lincoln significant loss of business and income, cast negative aspersions 

on the efficacy of Senior Care, and injured Lincoln’s good will and professional reputation. 

 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 12 of 46
13 

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

 17. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has 

subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal 

Question), § 1332 (Diversity) and § 1367 (Supplemental Jurisdiction). The parties are 

citizens of different States and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 

$75,000, exclusive of interest, costs and fees. 

 18. Google is subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida pursuant to Florida’s 

long-arm statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193, as well as the Due Process Clause of the United States 

Constitution. Google is subject to both general and specific personal jurisdiction. Google 

engages in continuous and systematic business in Florida from which it derives enormous 

revenue and profit. Google has an office in Miami, where it builds products and engages 

software engineering, design and sales. [https://careers.google.com/locations/miami/]. For 

over five (5) years, Google has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of doing 

business in Florida. Google has defrauded hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of 

conservative Floridians in an ongoing effort to discriminate and purge conservatives from 

Google’s platforms. Florida has a significant interest in protecting its citizens from the acts 

of racketeering activity at issue in this case. Google has minimum contacts with Florida 

such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over it comports with traditional notions of 

fair play and substantial justice and is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the United 

States Constitution. 

 19. Venue is proper in the Fort Pierce Division of the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Florida pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) and Title 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and 1391(b)(2). Google resides, is found, has agents, and transacts 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 13 of 46
14 

affairs in Florida. A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Lincoln’s 

claim occurred within the Fort Pierce Division. 

IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

A. Lincoln’s Business – Senior Care 

 20. Darren and Jennifer are conservative Republicans. They voted for Donald 

Trump in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. Darren’s conservative ideology, 

political views and support of President Trump are matters of public record well-known to 

Google. [https://twitter.com/darrenlincolnfl; https://twitter.com/darrenlincoln7]. Google 

also knew that the Lincolns were conservative supporters of Donald Trump through 

interaction with Google’s agents in blogs and chat rooms. 

 21. In 1996, Lincoln, doing business as “Merchants News” and “Merchants 

Media”, published two wholesale trade publications nationwide. Lincoln sold 

advertisements to importers, exporters, and wholesalers of general merchandise. It 

distributed its publications to small retailers in Flea Markets and retail stores in Florida and 

across the United States. Lincoln was very successful for many years. [See

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CBfgddv9Eo]. 

 22. When the Internet came along, Darren, who has a B.S. in computer 

science/systems from the University of West Florida College of Business (1986), created 

and developed multiple wholesale-to-the-trade websites to compliment Lincoln’s already 

successful publishing company, e.g.: www.wholesaleEZ.com, www.offpriseEZ.com, 

www.OverstockEZ.com, www.closeoutsEZ.com. and www.jennysfreecoupons.com. The 

websites supported Lincoln’s wholesale trade print publications. Lincoln charged 

wholesale advertisers to advertise on its websites. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 14 of 46
15 

 23. Five years ago, Lincoln developed a “Senior Care” website, 

www.SeniorLivingNation,com. On February 27, 2018, Lincoln changed the domain name 

and extension to “https://SeniorCare.care”, a secure website which is a valid top level 

domain according to ICANN.org (The internet corporation for assigned names and 

numbers), designed to spider up even more proficiently than a “.com” due to the vertical 

nature of the domain in the Senior Care search results. Senior Care currently has 

46,477 individual unique landing pages with a total of 136,847 xml sitemaps and .txt files 

loaded onto the Google Search Console pointing to those pages for indexing on Google. 

 24. Senior Care is a website that helps people find comprehensive living 

solutions for seniors and families. Senior Care’s homepage is bright and informative: 

With over 46,000 assisted living facilities, nursing homes, and home care agents listed on 

its website, Senior Care connects caregivers to senior health care providers under one 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 15 of 46
16 

platform. Senior Care is easy to navigate. The website allows users to search for caregivers 

in all fifty states, and in most major cities. For instance, a family looking for assisted living 

options in Fort Pierce, Florida, can click on “Florida” and “Fort Pierce”, and sixteen (16) 

alternatives are presented. [https://seniorcare.care/best-assisted-living-facilities-in-FortPierce--Florida]. Lincoln partners with https://www.aplaceformom.com/. “A Place for 

Mom” answers Senior Care’s toll free number with a professional senior care 

advisor, guides people for free to the right senior care solution, and provides Lincoln 

with daily reports regarding call outcomes. 

 25. Lincoln earns money when a family contracts with a caregiver that it finds 

through the Senior Care website. 

 26. In order to increase the quantity and quality of traffic to its website, Lincoln 

reviewed, followed and relied upon Google’s representations, guidance, advice and 

instruction concerning search engine optimization (“SEO”). In electronic 

communications, Google and its agents and associates told Lincoln what needed to be done 

to the Senior Care website in order to optimize the number of visits to the site. Lincoln 

reasonably relied on Google’s representations concerning Search. Until 2018, Lincoln had 

no knowledge that Google, as a matter of routine corporate practice, harbored institutional 

bias towards conservatives and systemically used its proprietary algorithms and other 

devices to de-index websites and manipulate ranking (demote websites). Lincoln also did 

not know that it was on a Google blacklist. Lincoln was harmed because it relied on and 

followed Google’s advice (not its editorial decisions, but its concrete, positive 

representations) on how to compete using Search. Google concealed the fact that no matter 

what Lincoln did, Lincoln would never obtain any Search results. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 16 of 46
17 

 27. Google and its associates’ representations to Lincoln about the Senior Care 

website and what Lincoln need to do to optimize Search results were materially false and 

misleading. In truth, Google subjected Lincoln to censorship and covert Search 

manipulation [See, e.g., https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4589 (“Sen. 

Cruz: Google Subjects the American People to Overt Censorship and Covert 

Manipulation”)]. 

B. Google Search 

 28. Google’s core products – Search, Android, Maps, Chrome, YouTube, 

Google Play and Gmail – each have over one billion monthly active users. 

 29. Google averages at least 6 Billion searches a day. It handles trillions of 

searches each year. [https://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/responses/]. 

 30. Every time a person searches the Internet, there are thousands, sometimes 

billions, of webpages with potentially useful information. Google Search streamlines the 

process of finding “potentially useful information” or a needed service, such as a caregiver 

or assisted living facility. Using proprietary software and secretive programs, Google 

dispatches “crawlers” every second to invade a website and “crawl as many pages from 

your site as we can on each visit”. Google’s main web crawler is called “Googlebot”. 

[https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/182072?d]. The crawling process begins 

with a list of web addresses from past crawls and sitemaps provided by website owners, 

such as Lincoln. As Google’s crawlers visit a website, they use links on those sites to 

discover other pages. Google’s software pays special attention to new sites, changes to 

existing sites and dead links. Google’s computer programs determine which sites to crawl, 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 17 of 46
18 

how often, and how many webpages to fetch from each site and bring back to Google. 

[https://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/crawling-indexing/]. 

 31. Google organizes information about webpages in its Search index. The 

Search index is like a library, except it contains more digital information than in all the 

world’s libraries put together. [https://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/]. The 

web is like an ever-growing library with billions of books and no central filing system. 

Google’s crawlers look at webpages and follow links on those pages, much like a person 

would if they were browsing content on the web. Google’s crawlers go from link to link 

and bring data about those webpages back to Google’s servers. When crawlers find a 

webpage, Google’s systems render the content of the page, just as a browser does. Google 

takes note of key signals – from keywords to website freshness – and it keeps track of it all 

in the Search index. The Google Search index contains hundreds of billions of webpages 

and is well over 100,000,000 gigabytes in size. It’s like the index in the back of a book – 

with an entry for every word seen on every webpage Google indexes. When Google 

indexes or catalogues a webpage, Google adds it to the entries for all of the words it 

contains. [https://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/crawling-indexing/]. 

 32. Google represents that its Search algorithms sort through hundreds of 

billions of webpages in its Search index in a fraction of a second to find the “most relevant, 

useful results” for what the person searching is looking for. With the amount of 

information available on the web, finding what is needed would be nearly impossible 

without Google. To sort the webpages in its Search index, Google claims that it employs 

“ranking systems”. Google claims that its ranking systems are designed to sort through 

hundreds of billions of webpages in its Search index to find the “most relevant, useful 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 18 of 46
19 

results” in a fraction of a second, and present them in a way that helps the user find what 

they are looking for. According to Google, its ranking systems are made up of not one, but 

a whole series of algorithms. Search algorithms look at many factors, including the words 

of query, relevance and usability of pages, expertise of sources, and the person’s location 

and settings. Google represents that the weight applied to each factor varies depending on 

the nature of the query – for example, the freshness of the content plays a bigger role in 

answering queries about current news topics than it does about dictionary definitions. To 

help ensure Search algorithms meet high standards of relevance and quality, Google claims 

to have a “rigorous process” that involves both live tests and thousands of trained external 

Search Quality Raters from around the world. These “Quality Raters” follow “strict 

guidelines”3

 that define Google’s publicly stated goals for Search algorithms. 

[https://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/algorithms/]. 

 33. What Google says and what Google does are polar opposites. 

 34. Google’s “mission statement” is as follows: 

3

 The URL or internet webpage of the “strict guidelines” is: 

https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/guidelines.raterhub.com/en//searchqualityeval

uatorguidelines.pdf. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 19 of 46
20 

https://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/mission/]. This statement, relied upon 

by Lincoln, is false and misleading. Google does not treat all political viewpoints equally 

and it does not make information “universally accessible and useful.” Google censors 

conservatives and manipulates Search results so that the websites of conservatives, 

especially conservative Republicans, such as Lincoln, are never seen. 

 35. A website that is never seen generates no revenue. 

 36. A business that generates no revenue is soon insolvent. 

 37. This is how Google systematically destroys its enemies. 

 38. Google’s harbors institutional bias against and disdain for conservatives. 

[https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/08/a-method-of-google-search-bias-quantificationand-its-application-in-climate-debate-and-general-political-discourse/ (“Google Search is 

found to be biased in favor of left/liberal domains and against conservative domains with 

a confidence of 95%.”); https://www.richmond.com/opinion/our-opinion/editorial-doesgoogle-have-it-in-for-conservatives-sure-seems/article_941dfe3d-778e-5092-adf8-

4dd413d79ea8.html (“Does Google have it in for conservatives? Sure seems that way.”)]. 

Google-affiliated donors gave $817,855 to Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy in 

2008, which ranked sixth among all donations to Obama’s campaign. In 2012, that number 

was $804,240, which ranked third. Google did not even rank in the top twenty donors for 

Obama’s Republican opponents in either election. The Obama Administration’s close ties 

to Google are now well-known: During Obama’s two terms in office, Google officials met 

with the White House on more than 427 occasions, while at least fifty-three (53) officials 

moved between Google and the White House and vice versa. Not surprisingly, the Obama 

Administration championed many of the top policies on Google’s wish list, while Obama’s 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 20 of 46
21 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) closed its antitrust investigation of Google without any 

meaningful sanctions. [https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/01/googleagrees-change-its-business-practices-resolve-ftc]. The disparity grew even more stark 

during the last presidential election. Google employees gave $1.3 million to Hillary 

Clinton’s presidential campaign, compared with $26,000 to the Trump campaign. What’s 

more, Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Alphabet (Google’s parent company), counseled 

Clinton on strategy during her presidential campaign, and financed Civis Analytics, a 

startup which provided data and other technology for her campaign. 

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/10/trump-google-youtube-searchresults-biased-against-republicans-conservatives-column/1248099002/]. 

 39. Google concealed its institutional bias from the public, including Lincoln. 

Years after Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election, an internal Google video 

leaked showing Google’s co-founder Sergey Brin, its CEO Sundar Pichai, and many other 

high-ranking Google officers speaking, with dismay, about Trump’s election victory, e.g.: 

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leadershipsdismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/; 

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/google-bosses-upset-over-trump-election-victoryleaked-video-shows; 

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/406437-google-execs-lament-trump-win-inleaked-video. 

 40. Google’s institutional bias and prejudice against conservatives translates 

into discriminatory action. Documents and information made public by whistleblowers 

and insiders demonstrate that Google manipulates its advertising policies and Search 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 21 of 46
22 

results based on Google’s political ideology, policy goals and corporate agenda. [See, e.g., 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-workers-discussed-tweaking-search-function-tocounter-travel-ban-1537488472 (“Google Workers Discussed Tweaking Search 

Function to Counter Travel Ban”)]. For example, during Congressional debate in 2018 

over the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) – legislation that would hold online 

services liable for knowingly assisting or facilitating online sex trafficking – Google Search 

results consistently returned links to content opposed to the legislation. Google strongly 

opposed the legislation. Even today, the top result when searching for “SESTA” remains 

a link to http://stopsesta.org, sponsored by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group 

which Google supports financially. 

 41. More recently, Google employees engaged in an internal lobbying 

campaign, proved by leaked internal emails, to block Breitbart from Google’s advertising 

program. https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/10/google-ads-bias/ (“Google Employees 

Sought To Block Breitbart From Ads, Emails Show”)]. As part of this internal lobbying 

campaign, one Google employee emphasized that “[t]here is obviously a moral argument 

to be made [for blocking Breitbart] as well as a business case.” Breitbart has been among 

Google’s staunchest critics, alleging that the company routinely censors conservative 

viewpoints. Google uses the sheer ubiquity and power of its products, including Search, 

to harm conservatives and squelch their voices. 

 42. As a result of its Search technology (algorithms programmed by humans) 

and its control over nearly all Internet search and search advertising, Google has the power 

to unilaterally and decisively destroy a business or a presidential candidate’s bid for office 

if it chooses to – simply by “tweaking” its Search algorithms to discriminate against the 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 22 of 46
23 

business; by blocking the business from its Search and Ad platforms; or by employing any 

number of other technological schemes and artifices to destroy the business. 

 43. In this case, Google harmed Lincoln’s business through a series of 

fraudulent schemes and artifices that were concealed from Lincoln. Google fraudulently 

manipulated Search, and made it appear as if Lincoln did not exist. In an era of increasing 

concern about privacy abuses, transparency and trust, what happens next if Google is not 

enjoined by a Court? 

C. Google’s Fraud And Interference With Lincoln’s Business

 44. Between 2014 and 2019, Lincoln and its Senior Care website fully complied 

with all Google Webmaster Guidelines and other operational standards. 

[https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35769?hl=en]. Lincoln’s website is 

written in PHP code. It is user friendly and authoritative. It contains original, current, 

relevant content, including name, address, contact number, weather, city specifics as well 

as surroundings, types of care solutions offered as well multiple photographs, videos, 

monthly rates, client logos, amenities, room features, activities and services, maps and 

directions to the facility/community etc., and free Expert Advise with a toll free number 

monitored 24/7 to have a qualified senior care advisor help access needs at no cost to the 

potential resident, offering multiple options, mostly near loved ones. Senior Care is by far 

the best information piece for senior care available on the Internet today with over 46,000 

listings in the United States all customized to show individual current relevant content. 

Senior Care is also mobile and social media compliant, and “https” compliant and secure. 

Between 2016 and the present, Lincoln has only improved the quality of its website. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 23 of 46
24 

 45. In November 2016, before the Presidential Election, Lincoln (Senior Care) 

had 15,410 webpages indexed in the Google Search index. Today, only 657 webpages are 

indexed by Google. Since Google is in exclusive control of its “crawlers” and indexing 

processes, Google is wholly responsible for de-indexing Senior Care. 

 46. In November 2016, just before the Presidential Election, Senior Care’s 

“page rank” on Google was 5. Today, it is zero (0). PageRank (PR) is a mathematical 

algorithm created and used by Google Search to rank web pages in Google’s search engine 

results. PR measures the importance of website pages. PR is used by Google to determine 

how high a website will be place in the Search Engine Results Page (SERP). 

[http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~chazelle/courses/BIB/pagerank.htm]. According to 

Google: 

 “PageRank works by counting the number and quality of links to a page to 

 determine a rough estimate of how important the website is. The underlying 

 assumption is that more important websites are likely to receive more links from 

 other websites.” 

[https://web.archive.org/web/20111104131332/https://www.google.com/competition/how

googlesearchworks.html]. Most users tend to concentrate on the first few search results, 

so getting a spot or ranking at the top of the SERP means more user traffic. [See

https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-google-pagerank-1616795]. Conversely, a website that 

is relegated to the third, fourth, fifth SERPs or that is not even displayed, will get no traffic. 

 47. Typing “seniorcare” in the Google search bar does not autofill or 

recommend “seniorcare.care”, e.g.: 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 24 of 46
25 

 

 48. A current Google search for keyword “seniorcare” returns 12,600,000 

webpages, but no results for Senior Care. 

 49. A current search for keyword “assisted living” returns 4,760,000,000 

webpages, but no results for Senior Care. 

 50. A current search for keyword “assisted living fort pierce florida” returns 

4,240,000 webpages, but no results for Senior Care. 

 51. Lincoln experiences no traffic to its website because Google intentionally 

and fraudulently manipulates Search results. 

 52. Google manipulates search results through a variety of means and methods 

(all concealed from Lincoln), including, but not limited to: (a) changing its proprietary 

search algorithms, including ranking algorithms, to de-index Senior Care’s webpages and 

demote or downgrade Senior Care’s page rank; (b) blacklisting Lincoln and Senior Care; 

(c) changing its proprietary “evaluation methods” and “editorial guidelines”; (d) 

manipulating autofill/autocomplete processes, so “seniorcare.care” is never recommended, 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 25 of 46
26 

and (e) arbitrarily and capriciously imposing algorithmic penalties.4

 [see

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203347104578099122530080836; 

https://www.sitepronews.com/2015/04/06/has-google-manipulated-search-for-personalgain/; https://www.vox.com/2017/6/27/15878980/europe-fine-google-antitrust-search; 

http://www.aei.org/publication/is-google-manipulating-search-results-to-promote-apolitical-and-social-justice-agenda/; https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insiderblows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hiddencam/; https://cloudrock.asia/blog/manual-vs-algorithmic-google-penalties/; 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/google-manipulate-hillary-clinton/; 

https://spreadprivacy.com/google-filter-bubble-study/]. In 2007, Google implemented a 

“Safe Browsing” program [https://safebrowsing.google.com/] to help with the growing 

threat of malware, viruses and phishing sites in the Internet. The Safe Browsing Index 

blacklisted web addresses that Google deemed “unsafe”. Google now runs at least two 

blacklists, one allowing Google staff to remove “fringe” websites from Search results and 

4

 A Google “penalty” is a punishment against a website whose content 

conflicts with the ever-changing marketing practices enforced by Google. 

[https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/diagnose-fix-google-penalty]. Google’s imposition 

of algorithmic penalties on Lincoln is evidenced by the big drop in Google search engine 

ranking that happened over the months after the 2016 Presidential Election. Because 

Google habitually updated its algorithms without clearly stating what it being updated, 

Darren and Jennifer constantly monitored Lincoln’s positions on Google. Darren and 

Jennifer noticed on Google that https://seniorcare.care dropped more than 100 positions on 

the SERP or did not even show up at all on a multitude of keyword searches, such as 

“Senior Care”, “Home Health Care” and “Assisted Living”. Significantly, while Senior 

Care’s page rank plummeted on Google, https://seniorcare.care was ranking in other 

search engines like Bing and Yahoo. This is a clear indication of manipulation of Search 

by Google. [https://econsultancy.com/how-can-you-tell-if-you-have-a-google-penalty/

(“The telltale signs of something odd happening to the site are rankings and/or traffic 

drop”)]. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 26 of 46
27 

another for filtering out alleged “opinion” with which Google disagrees. The blacklists 

allow Google employees – who CEO Sundar Pichai told Congress in December never 

“manually intervene on any particular search result” – to suppress certain URLs or web 

addresses in a user’s search results. [https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/11/revealed-twogoogle-blacklists-fringe-domains-special-search-results/; https://www.rt.com/usa/461720-

google-blacklist-fringe-conservative/]. Lincoln is on one of Google’s blacklists. The dire 

consequence of being blacklisted by Google is that the business is basically off the Internet. 

[https://money.cnn.com/2013/11/04/smallbusiness/google-blacklist/index.html (“Being 

blacklisted can quickly decimate a small firm's reputation and sales.”)]. 

 53. Each one of Google’s intentionally nefarious practices has been perpetrated 

on Lincoln. Google is manipulating Search results because of Darren and Jennifer’s 

conservative political ideology. 

 54. Between 2014 and 2019, Google and its agents and associates 

communicated with Lincoln in interstate commerce hundreds of times using the wires (via 

Google blogs/chat rooms). [https://support.google.com/business/community?hl=en#]. 

Google also directed Lincoln to a third-party websites and vendors for information about 

changes to Google’s algorithms. [https://moz.com/google-algorithm-change]. Lincoln was 

never able to speak with a live person at Google. Rather, Lincoln was forced to “chat” 

with agents of Google and persons associated-in-fact with the enterprise online. Google 

represented to Lincoln that Search preference would be given to websites that were 

responsive in design and scalable to mobile devices (i.e., websites that were mobile 

friendly). [https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/google-algorithm-change-mobilefriendly]. Lincoln fully complied. In order to optimize generic SERP, Google told Lincoln 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 27 of 46
28 

that it had to increase the security of its website. Lincoln relied on Google’s representations 

and transitioned its website from http://SeniorCare.care to https://SeniorCare.care5 at great 

cost and expense. Google represented that Lincoln needed a real footprint in social media. 

Lincoln complied. Lincoln established a YouTube Channel called “Darren Lincoln” 

[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJdNchjdoE_tRCcs1sSDkUg/featured?disable_pol

ymer=1], created and uploaded content to the channel. Lincoln created a Twitter account: 

 

Google disclosed to Lincoln that it intended to penalize websites with interstitial ads and 

other pop-up content that could hinder a page’s functionality on a mobile device. Lincoln 

listened. Senior Care has no such ads or content. In sum, Lincoln fully complied with all

5

 HTTPS (Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure) is an internet communication 

protocol that protects the integrity and confidentiality of data between the user’s computer 

and the website. Google claims that “[u]sers expect a secure and private online experience 

when using a website. We encourage you to adopt HTTPS in order to protect your users’ 

connections to your website, regardless of the content on the site.” 

[https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6073543?hl=en]. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 28 of 46
29 

of Google’s webmaster guidelines and standards. Google never notified Lincoln of any 

failures or SEO wrongdoing, e.g., automatic link building, doorway pages, spammy email, 

scraped content, cloaking, etc., that would affect page ranking or generic SERP. 

 55. The sole proximate cause of the lack of web traffic to Lincoln’s web site is 

Google’s fraudulent and unlawful representations, discrimination and censorship.6 Google 

and its associates’ communications were for the express purpose of executing the scheme 

to defraud Lincoln and to suppress its viewpoint. Google and its associates each knew and 

intended for the misrepresentations concerning Search to cause Lincoln to incur a 

substantial financial burden that could not be recouped without the promised Search results. 

Google figured that if this enormous expense could not be recouped, Lincoln would be 

unable to continue in business. The calculated strategy implemented by Google designed 

to attrite and put Lincoln out of business. 

 56. In 2018, Lincoln was warned that Google was targeting conservatives and 

blocking them on Search. Lincoln was told that Google had “blacklists”,7 and Lincoln was 

on one. Darren began to see stories in the media that corroborated anecdotal accounts of 

Search bias and discrimination he received from colleagues. The fact that Google 

6

 Google’s manipulation and abuses effectively caused the Senior Care 

website to be removed from Search in violation of Google’s Removal Policies. 

[https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2744324?hl=en]. 

7

 One prominent expert, Dr. Robert Epstein, argues that Google actually 

employs at least nine (9) blacklists, including a “search engine blacklist”. 

[https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggestcensor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated (“The company maintains at least nine different 

blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside 

advisory group, industry association or government agency”)]. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 29 of 46
30 

manipulates Search and blacklists conservatives is now well-known thanks to 

whistleblowers and insiders, e.g.: 

https://www.businessinsider.com/conservative-google-employees-are-blacklistedlawsuit-alleges-2018-1; 

https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/09/google-news-blacklist-search-manipulation/; 

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/08/15/robert-epstein-googles-leaders-havebeen-perjuring-themselves-before-congress/. 

D. Lincoln’s Injury and Damages

 57. Lincoln’s mission is to improve the lives of families and caregivers by 

helping them connect in a reliable and easy way. Lincoln’s website helps families make 

informed decisions in one of the most important and highly considered aspects of their 

family life – finding and managing quality care for their loved ones. Lincoln built a website 

that provides families with a comprehensive marketplace for senior care. 

 58. The United States senior care service industry is comprised of skilled 

nursing facilities, home healthcare agencies, social services agencies, continuing care 

facilities, and assisted living facilities. Revenues for these elder care service providers are 

nearly $400 billion per year. https://www.freedoniagroup.com/industry-study/elder-careservices-3214.htm]. The market has grown steadily between 2016 and 2018. The steady 

growth is expected to continue through 2023. There are approximately 67,000,000 Baby 

Boomers in the United States. This enormous group will be making decisions about 

whether senior living is the right option for their aging loved ones, and eventually for 

themselves. As the Baby Boomer population ages, society is on the cusp of dealing with 

an unprecedented number of senior citizens who will need elder care. This opens the door 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 30 of 46
31 

for agents, brokers and referral services, such as Lincoln, to grow their businesses in this 

important and burgeoning sector of the American economy. 

[https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/12/13/473897.htm]. An aging 

population and the growing need for dementia care are stimulating much of the senior care 

industry’s growth. Retirement communities provide many services to assist seniors that 

suffer from chronic illnesses or to assist with activities of daily living. In the past five 

years, the number of assisted living facilities that provide dementia care has risen as a 

proportion of total facilities. The retirement communities industry is forecast to exhibit 

accelerated growth in the next two decades. [https://www.ibisworld.com/industrytrends/market-research-reports/healthcare-social-assistance/nursing-residential-carefacilities/retirement-communities.html]. 

 59. Lincoln was at the epi-center of the senior care industry, and was primed to 

take advantage of the vast opportunities presented to service referral providers. But for 

Google’s Search manipulation, Senior Care would have generated gross revenue of at least 

$4,000,000 per month based upon a two percent (2%) move-in/conversion rate from 

monthly traffic. Lincoln’s net profit from the operation of Senior Care was approximately 

fifteen percent of (15%) of gross revenue. This is the industry norm. 

 60. Lincoln’s loss of business and lost profits may be measured by the 

performance of other similarly-situated privately held, for-profit senior care referral 

services in the United States. Senior Care has over 46,000 individual assisted living 

facilities, nursing homes, and home care agents listed on its website. Lincoln’s operating 

costs and metrics are within industry norms, and are far less than its competitors. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 31 of 46
32 

 61. By comparison, https://www.aplaceformom.com/ (“APFM”) offers 20,000 

individual assisted living and senior care listings on its website. APFM earns $48,000,000 

per year in gross revenue. Its operating costs and metrics are as follows: 

● AdWords Avg. Spent Per Month $218,000; 

● Paid Keywords 2518 Words; 

● Estimated Monthly PPC Clicks 56,700 per month; 

● Organic Keywords 133,977 Resulting from Blogs and Article Posting; 

● Estimated SEO Clicks 1,200,000 per month; 

● SEO Click Value 2,600,000 per month; 

● First Page Keywords 4155; 

● Monthly Traffic 1,256,700 per month. 

APFM owns https://www.senioradvisor.com/ (“SA”). SA’s operating costs and metrics 

are as follows: 

● Google/Bing PPC AdWords Spend per month $122,000; 

● Paid Keywords 20,037 words; 

● Estimated Monthly PPC Clicks 29,800 per month; 

● Organic Keywords 62,376 – Blogs and Articles; 

● Estimated SEO Clicks 396,000 per month; 

● SEO Click Value $704,000 per month; 

● First Page Keywords 5052; 

● Monthly Traffic 425,800 per month. 

https://www.caring.com/ (“Caring”) is estimated to be worth $60,000,000. Its operating 

costs and metrics are as follows: 

● Google/Bing PPC AdWords Spend per month $97,000; 

● Paid Keywords 19531 words; 

● Estimated Monthly PPC Clicks 26,300; 

● Organic Keywords 30,420 – Blogs and Articles; 

● Estimated SEO Clicks 1,200,000; 

● SEO Click Value $240,000 per month; 

● First Page Keywords 2018; 

● Monthly Traffic 1,230,420 per month. 

https://www.care.com/ (“Care”) (NYSE:CRCM) is a public company with annual gross 

revenue of $161,000,000. Care’s operating costs and metrics are as follows: 

 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 32 of 46
33 

● Google/Bing PPC AdWords Spend per month $149,000; 

● Paid Keywords 10,378 words; 

● Estimated Monthly PPC Clicks 58,200; 

● Organic Keywords 200,100 – Blogs and Articles; 

● Estimated SEO Clicks 8,200,000; 

● SEO Click Value $8,360,000; 

● First Page Keywords 6,812; 

● Monthly Traffic 8,258,200 per month. 

Based upon the performances of APFM, SA, Caring and Care, it is reasonably certain that 

Senior Care would have achieved the same operating results and earned the same revenue, 

but for Google acts of racketeering activity. 

E. Continuity

 62. In its many communications with Lincoln, Google concealed from Lincoln 

the material fact that Google discriminates against conservatives and that it fraudulently 

manipulates Search. Google’s fraud and deceit induced Lincoln to make many expensive 

changes to the Senior Care website, which cost Lincoln millions in overhead, subcontract 

and related administrative cost and expense. Google represented to Lincoln that if Lincoln 

changed its website and followed Google’s direction, Senior Care would rise on Google’s 

generic SERP. Google knew its representations to Lincoln were false because Google 

knew that it was manipulating and suppressing Lincoln’s Search results. But for Google’s 

representations and fraudulent concealment, Lincoln would not have spent millions of 

dollars on its website to optimize its ranking on Google’s SERP. Lincoln chased a 

pipedream for many years at enormous cost and expense. 

 63. Google has been manipulating Search to further its corporate and political 

agendas since its inception. Deceit and manipulation are so ingrained in Google’s 

corporate culture that Google is willing to lie to Congress to avoid revealing the truth. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 33 of 46
34 

Google’s misconduct will continue indefinitely unless Google is enjoined and reorganized, 

so that its operation of Search is regulated. 

 64. On July 23, 2019, the United States Department of Justice Antitrust 

Division announced that it is reviewing whether and how Google has achieved market 

power and is engaging in practices that have reduced competition, stifled innovation, or 

otherwise harmed consumers. The Department’s review will consider the widespread 

concerns that consumers, businesses, and entrepreneurs have expressed about search, 

social media, and some retail services online. The Department’s Antitrust Division is 

conferring with and seeking information from the public, including industry participants 

who have direct insight into competition in online platforms, as well as 

others. [https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reviewing-practices-marketleading-online-platforms]. 

 65. Google’s discrimination against conservatives continues to this very day. 

[https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/04/06/appeals-court-tech-giants-must-facecensorship-lawsuit/ (“Appeals Court: Tech Giants Must Face Censorship Lawsuit”); 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/21/exclusive-donald-trump-jr-kevinmccarthy-josh-hawley-to-join-forces-expose-big-tech-at-cpac/ (“Donald Trump Jr., 

Kevin McCarthy, Josh Hawley to Join Forces, Expose Big Tech at CPAC”); 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/stunning-youtube-takes-down-judicialwatch-and-right-side-broadcastings-impeachment-feed-want-to-drive-viewers-to-liberalmedia-feeds/ (“YouTube Takes Down Judicial Watch and Right Side Broadcasting’s 

Impeachment Feed — Want to Drive Viewers to Liberal Media Feeds”); 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-interferes-with-its-search-algorithms-andCase 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 34 of 46
35 

changes-your-results-11573823753?mod=hp_lead_pos7 (“How Google Interferes With 

Its Search Algorithms And Changes Your Results”); 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=0&v=7w7r4LZY4R0 (“Studies Prove 

Google Is Swinging 2020 AGAINST Trump, Biased Against Conservatives”)]. If 

anything, the pace of Google’s censorship, manipulation of search algorithms, fraud and 

corrupt practices has increased during the novel coronavirus-19 pandemic. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – 

FEDERAL RICO

 66. Lincoln restates paragraphs 1 through 65 of this Second Amended 

Complaint and incorporates them herein by reference. 

 67. At all times relevant to this action, Google was part of an information 

technology and social media enterprise consisting of a union or group of persons, including 

Alphabet, Inc., its CEO and Board of Directors, YouTube, its CEO and Board of Directors, 

and outside third-party engineers, search engine optimizers, and digital sales marketing 

consultants (identified above), associated-in-fact, who operated with a common purpose: 

to misrepresent Google’s corporate philosophy, its business model and its intent 

concerning Search, to induce Lincoln to modify its website and business practices to 

conform to Google’s policies and practices, and to discriminate against conservatives, 

especially conservative Republicans like the Lincolns. The core shared purpose of the 

enterprise was (and remains) censorship, the elimination of free speech and competition, 

discrimination, and the destruction of conservative businesses. The relationship of the 

enterprise associates consists of informal and formal agreements and understandings to 

engage in fraud and deceit, to threaten, intimidate, censor and cause harm through 

sophisticated, brutal and unlawful manipulation of various properties, including Search, 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 35 of 46
36 

utilized by the participants in the enterprise. Google created and implemented an 

institutional corporate censorship policy that was conveyed to each associated member of 

the enterprise. Google instructed the persons associated with the enterprise to conceal the 

fact that no matter what Lincoln did, Lincoln would never show up in Search. Each 

member of the enterprise shared a common motive to defraud and discriminate against 

Lincoln: hostility towards conservative Republicans who at any time were supportive of 

or associated (socially, economically or professionally) with President Trump. The 

enterprise arose in 2015 when then-candidate Donald Trump announced that he intended 

to run for President of The United States. After the enterprise failed in its attempt to 

influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election, the enterprise focused its attention 

and ire on damaging the businesses and reputations of those who supported President 

Trump. Google advised each member of the enterprise internally via email and via policies 

published on Google website as to the steps to be taken to injure the businesses of 

conservatives like Lincoln. The members of the enterprise, including the third-party 

consultants, followed Google’s orders.8

 The distinct structure of the enterprise is 

evidenced by its organizational pattern or system of authority beyond what was necessary 

to perpetrate the predicate acts of racketeering against Lincoln. The enterprise in this case 

has a command system consisting of high-level policy-makers at Alphabet who gave the 

8

 Specific communications between the persons associated with the 

enterprise are within the exclusive possession and control of Google and its associated 

persons. Without discovery, there is no way for Lincoln to allege with greater specificity 

what specific information was shared between members and when about Lincoln and other 

conservatives. Hill v. Morehouse Medical Associates, Inc., 2003 WL 22019936, at * 3 (11th

Cir. 2003) (“Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard may be applied less stringently, 

however, when specific ‘factual information [about the fraud] is peculiarly within the 

defendant's knowledge or control.’”) (citations and quotations omitted). 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 36 of 46
37 

orders, engineers who developed the fraudulent algorithms, blacklists and other 

mathematical schemes and artifices, and lieutenants at Google who published the 

fraudulent statements that induced Lincoln to expend millions to develop its website. 

 68. Lincoln has been injured in its business and property by reason of Google’s 

multiple violations of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), described above. Google engaged in at 

least two acts of racketeering activity (wire fraud), one of which occurred after the effective 

date of Part 1, Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the last of which 

occurred within ten years after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. 

Google conducted, operated or managed an associated-in-fact enterprise through a pattern 

of racketeering activity that caused Lincoln concrete financial loss. Censorship and 

discrimination are part of Google’s regular way of doing business. Google knowingly 

implemented and used the same or similar clandestine means and methods upon unwitting 

conservatives and conservative Republicans throughout the United States. Google 

continues to engage in related racketeering activity, the direct purpose of which is to 

discriminate against and defraud conservatives. The nature of Google’s racketeering 

activity (including its multiple schemes or artifices to manipulate Search and defraud 

Lincoln), its continuity, relatedness and breadth, is such that there is a threat that it will 

continue indefinitely and be repeated in the future. 

 69. As a direct and proximate cause of Google’s violations of Title 18 U.S.C. § 

1962, Lincoln suffered injury and loss of property in the amount of $30,000,000. 

 70. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a), Lincoln seeks an injunction to 

impose reasonable restrictions on Google’s future activities, including Google’s use of 

Search to discriminate against conservatives, and to prevent Google from manipulating 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 37 of 46
38 

Search, and to order the dissolution or reorganization of Google so as to prevent or restrain 

Google from violating Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962. 

 71. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), Lincoln seeks threefold the 

damages it has sustained, the costs of this suit, and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – 

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a)

 72. Lincoln restates paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Second Amended 

Complaint and incorporates them herein by reference. 

 73. There is an actual case and controversy between the parties over whether 

Google engaged in acts of “racketeering activity” (wire fraud) when it induced Lincoln to 

change its website knowing that it was censoring and discriminating against Lincoln and 

that the changes would not direct any traffic to Senior Care. 

 74. For the reasons stated above, and to be developed by additional evidence in 

Google’s exclusive possession, Google’s conduct constitutes racketeering activity as 

defined in Title 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). Google disputes this contention. Google maintains 

that its conduct was not fraudulent or deceptive. Rather, Google had a right under the First 

Amendment to misrepresent and conceal its true intentions from Lincoln. 

 75. For many years, Google has censored and discriminated against 

conservatives. Google’s conduct continues to date, and will be repeated again and again 

in the future to the detriment of Lincoln and others. 

 76. Accordingly, Lincoln seeks injunctive relief from the Court pursuant to 

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a), including, but not limited to, an order: (1) imposing reasonable 

restrictions on Google’s future activities, including Google’s use of Search to discriminate 

against conservatives, (2) to enjoin Google from manipulating Search, and (3) to order the 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 38 of 46
39 

dissolution and/or reorganization of Google so as to prevent or restrain Google from 

violating Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962 in the future. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – 

FLORIDA RICO

 77. Lincoln restates paragraphs 1 through 76 of this Second Amended 

Complaint and incorporates them herein by reference. 

 78. Google conducted or participated in an enterprise through a pattern of 

racketeering activity. 

 79. There is continuity in Google’s racketeering activity, as well as similarity 

and interrelatedness between the activities. 

 80. As a direct and proximate cause of Google’s violations of the Florida RICO 

Act, Lincoln suffered injury and loss of property in the amount of $30,000,000. 

 81. In accordance with Fla. Stat § 772.104(1), Lincoln seeks threefold the 

damages it has sustained, the costs of this suit, reasonable attorney’s fees incurred, and 

injunctive relief as prayed for above. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – 

FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT

 82. Lincoln restates paragraphs 1, 13-15, 26- 27, 34-56 and 62-63 of this Second 

Amended Complaint and incorporates them herein by reference. 

 83. Lincoln is a consumer with headquarters in Florida. Lincoln designed and 

programmed the website at issue in Florida, and suffered damages, including irreparable 

harm, as a result of Google’s false statements (described in detail above) and wrongful 

actions, in Florida. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 39 of 46
40 

 84. Google does business in Florida and, at all relevant times, was engaged in 

trade or commerce within the meaning of § 501.203(8) of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair 

Trade Practices Act (the “Act”). 

 85. Google’s fraud, concealment, discrimination against conservatives like 

Lincoln, deceptive and misleading acts and statements (described above in this complaint) 

caused harm to Lincoln. Lincoln expected Google to comply with its published policies 

concerning Search and its public statements concerning censorship. Google 

misrepresented its intent, violated Lincoln’s First Amendment rights and discriminated 

against Lincoln, causing Lincoln substantial damages. 

 86. Google’s practices are likely to deceive consumers acting reasonably, and 

have in fact already deceived consumers into believing that Google does not discriminate 

against conservatives and fairly administers Search. 

 87. The public has a great interest in whether Google’s statements to the public 

are misleading and deceptive, particularly as Google controls ninety percent (90%) market 

share of web search. 

 88. Google’s treatment of Lincoln was plainly unlawful and unfair, as it singled 

Lincoln out for disparate treatment solely because of Lincoln’s ideology. 

 89. Google engaged in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or 

practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce 

in violation of the Act. 

 90. As a direct and proximate result of Google’s violations of the Act, Lincoln 

suffered actual damages, including injury and loss of property in the amount of 

$30,000,000. In addition to damages, attorney’s fees and costs, Lincoln seeks a declaratory 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 40 of 46
41 

judgment that Google’s acts and practices violate the Act and an injunction to prevent 

Google from violating the Act in the future. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – 

FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT AND ACTUAL FRAUD

 91. Lincoln restates paragraphs 1, 13-15, 26-27, 34-56 and 62-63, of this 

Second Amended Complaint and incorporates them herein by reference. 

 92. Google fraudulently induced Lincoln to make millions of dollars of 

alterations to its website by misrepresenting that the changes would improve the SEO of 

Senior Care and by concealing the fact that Google discriminates against conservatives and 

that it blacklisted Lincoln. Google was in possession of information that Lincoln had a 

right to know because of (a) Google’s position of superior knowledge and Lincoln’s lack 

of access to and lack of opportunity to discover the truth, (b) Google’s superior bargaining 

power and Lincoln’s dependence on Google for advice, counsel and protection regarding 

Search, and (c) because of the relation of trust and confidence between Google (and its 

trusted partners) and Lincoln. Google manipulated Lincoln’s organic search ranking 

unfairly and illegally. Google forced Lincoln to spend an unreasonable amount of money 

on its website and business that would not otherwise have been necessary, but for Google’s 

misrepresentations and omissions. In lights of its actions and representations, Google had 

a disclose to Lincoln that it discriminated against conservatives and that it had blacklisted 

Lincoln, and, therefore, the changes that Google induced Lincoln to make to its website 

and business would have no effect whatsoever on Lincoln Search results. 

 93. Lincoln reasonably and justifiably relied upon Google’s misrepresentations 

and concealment by spending millions to improve its website. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 41 of 46
42 

 94. Google’s representations were false at the time they were made. Google 

knew that the institutional and systemic policy among the companies in the Alphabet 

enterprise was one of censorship and discrimination. Google knew that Lincoln was on a 

blacklist. Google’s intentional omissions and non-disclosures were material to Lincoln’s 

decision whether to spend money on its website. Through the emails and chats with 

Google, Google knew that Lincoln was taking action in detrimental reliance on Google’s 

representations. 

 95. Google acted under false and deceitful pretenses to further its own corporate 

agenda and self-interest. Google knew that Lincoln was acting at all relevant times under 

the false impression (created by Google) that Google did not discriminate. 

 96. Google’s statements, actions, concealment and non-disclosure constitute 

fraud in the inducement and actual fraud. 

 97. As a direct and proximate result of Google’s fraud, Lincoln suffered actual 

damages, including loss of business and income, injury to its professional name, reputation, 

brand and good will, attorney’s fees and costs in the sum of $30,000,000. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – 

CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD

 98. Lincoln restates paragraphs 1, 13-15, 26-27, 34-56, 62-63 and 92 of this 

Second Amended Complaint and incorporates them herein by reference. 

 99. Lincoln reposed trust and confidence in Google, which Google accepted. 

Google and its agents gave Lincoln advice concerning the specific acts necessary to 

increase Lincoln’s Search results. Google knew that Lincoln was relying its advice in 

making change to its website and business. As a result, a fiduciary relationship arose 

between Google and Lincoln. 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 42 of 46
43 

 100. Google took unconscionable advantage of Lincoln. Lincoln was completely 

dependent on the Search giant, Google. Google undertook to advise, counsel, and protect 

Lincoln, and made representations to Lincoln, the weaker party, that Google knew and 

intended for Lincoln to rely on. 

 101. Google made false and fraudulent representations to Lincoln, upon which 

Lincoln relied to its detriment. Google concealed material facts that it had a duty to 

disclose. 

 102. Google’s statements, actions, concealment and non-disclosure constitute 

constructive fraud. 

 103. As a direct and proximate result of Google’s constructive fraud, Lincoln 

suffered actual damages, including loss of business and income, injury to its professional 

name, reputation, brand and good will, attorney’s fees and costs in the sum of $30,000,000. 

 Lincoln alleges the foregoing based upon personal knowledge, public statements of 

others, and records in its possession. Lincoln believes that substantial additional 

evidentiary support, which is in the exclusive possession of Google and its agents and other 

third-parties, will exist for the allegations and claims set forth above after a reasonable 

opportunity for discovery. 

 Lincoln reserves its right to further amend this Complaint upon discovery of 

additional instances of Google’s wrongdoing. 

 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 43 of 46
44 

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to enter Judgment against 

Google as follows: 

 A. Compensatory damages in the amount of $30,000,000.00 or such greater 

amount as is determined by the Jury; 

 B. Threefold damages in the sum of $90,000,000.00; 

 C. Punitive damages in the amount of $5,000,000.00 or the maximum amount 

allowed by law; 

 D. Injunctive relief in accordance with Title 18 U.S.C. § 1964 and Florida law; 

 E. Dissolution and/or reorganization of Google to prevent Google from 

engaging in Search manipulation in the future; 

 F. Prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; 

 G. Postjudgment interest on the principal sum of the Judgment entered against 

Google from the date of Judgment until paid; 

 H. Attorney’s Fees, Expert Witness Fees and Costs; 

 I. Such other relief as is just and proper. 

TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMANDED

DATED: January 29, 2021 

Signature of Counsel on Next Page 

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 44 of 46
45 

 DJ LINCOLN ENTERPRISES, INC. 

 By: /s/ Jordan R. Wagner 

 Jordan Reid Wagner (Florida Bar No: 14852) 

 73 SW Flagler Avenue 

 Stuart, FL 34994 

 Phone: (772) 286-0023 

 Service email: jwagner@kibbeylaw.com

 Steven S. Biss (VSB # 32972) 

 300 West Main Street, Suite 102 

 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 

 Telephone: (804) 501-8272 

 Facsimile: (202) 318-4098 

 Email: stevenbiss@earthlink.net

 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

 Counsel for the Plaintiff

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 45 of 46
46 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on January 29, 2021 a copy of the foregoing was filed 

electronically using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notice of electronic filing 

to counsel for the Defendant and all interested parties receiving notices via CM/ECF. 

 By: /s/ Jordan R. Wagner 

 Jordan Reid Wagner (Florida Bar No: 14852) 

 73 SW Flagler Avenue 

 Stuart, FL 34994 

 Phone: (772) 286-0023 

 Service email: jwagner@kibbeylaw.com

 Steven S. Biss (VSB # 32972) 

 300 West Main Street, Suite 102 

 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 

 Telephone: (804) 501-8272 

 Facsimile: (202) 318-4098 

 Email: stevenbiss@earthlink.net

 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

 Counsel for the Plaintiff

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2021 Page 46 of 46