## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 3012 B EV ERLY S TAYA RT, a/k/ a B EV S TAYA RT Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. G OO GLE I NC ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 2:10- cv-00336

—L ynnA delm an, Judge .
A RG UE D M AR CH 27, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 6, 2013

Befo re F LA UM, W I L L I A MS, an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges. W IL LI A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . Dis sat i sfi ed w i th the r esul ts ofi nter net s ear ches for h er nam e, Bever l y S tay ar t has l au nc he d a l eg al ca m pai g n ag ains t i nt erne t se ar ch engi nes. In thi s, herthi rd l aw su it, she conte nd s that Googl e i s in vi ol ati on o fW i sco nsi n m i sappropri ati on l aw s be cause a s ea rch f or“be v s tay ar t” m ay l ead to a se arch f or“be v s tay ar t l evi tr a, ” which in turn m ay l ead to w ebsi tes ad ve rti si ng drugs to tr eatm al e e re cti l e dys-2 N o. 11

- 3012 functi on. The di str i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d her l aw sui t for f ai l ure to sta te a pl ausibl e cl ai m f orr el i ef and s he appeal s. H owever, S tayar t has notar ti cul ate d a se t o ff acts that c a n pl a us ib l y l e a d t o r e l i e fu nd e r W i sc o ns i n’ s mi s a ppr o pr i at i o n l aws b ec au se the us e sh e al l eges fal l s wi th

i n two excepti ons: publi c i nter estand i nci dentaluse. Fi rs t, Stayart m ad e the cha ll en ged search ph ra s e “bev stayart lev itr a” a m at te r of pu b lic in te re st b y su in g Ya h oo ! ov er it i n 201 0. A nd as a m att ero fpubli c i nter est, thatphra se c an n otse rv e a s t h e b as is of a m isa p p ro p ria tio n su it. In add i ti on, St aya rt has not ple d a ny f acts showing a subs t a n t i a lc o n n e c t i o n b e t we e n G o o g l e ’ s us e o fh e r n a me and i ts eff or ts to gener ate advertis i ng r eve nues, tr i gger i ng the i nci dental

- use excepti on to W i sco nsi n’s m i sa p p r o p r i a t i o n l a ws . F o r th e s e r e a s o n s , w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND Googl e Inc. i s a Delaware c or pora ti on with i ts pri nci pal pla ce o fbusi ness i n C alifo rni a. The co m pany’s i nter net sea rch engi ne, als o cal l ed “Goog l e, ” com pil es i nfo rm ati on av ai l ab l e o n th e i nt erne t i nt o a sing l e dat ab as e, enab l i ng us er s to s tr ea m l i ne a nd e xpe di te s ea r ch es f o r o nl i ne c o nt e nt
. Whe n a n i nt e r ne tu s e r e nt e r s de s cri pti v e wo r ds orphrase s into the s ear ch engine, Goog l e g ener ate s a l i st ofse ar ch r esul ts that ar e r el ev an t to the use r’ s quer y. W hi le the s ea r che ng i ne i s fr ee t o us er s, Go o g l e g en er ates re venue fro m i ts ser vi ces by offer i ng pai d place

m ent a dvert i si ng o n the sea rch re sul ts pages. Appel l an t Bev er l y S ta y ar t, a n a dul t ci ti zen o fEl k ho r n, W i sc o ns i n, c l ai m s th ats he i s wi dely kno wn o n theN o. 11

- 3012 3 i nt e r ne ta s a r e s pe c t e d s c ho l aro fg e ne a l o g y a nd a “posi ti ve and w hol eso m e” l eaderi n the ani m alr i ghts m ove m ent. S he be l i eve s that she i s the o nl y “ Bev S tay ar t” o r “ Be v e r l y S t a y a r t ” o n th e i n t e r n e t, th a th e r n a me c ar ries s i gni fi cant c om m er ci alvalue, and that i t i s a com peti ti ve key w or d ph ra se f ori nter net s ear ch engines. I n A pri l20 10, S tay ar t fi l ed a s tat e- l aw m i sappropri ati on cl ai m ag ai nst Goo gl e, al l eging tha t the com pany used her nam e without per m i ssi on t o ge n er ate fi nanci alr evenue thr ough o nl i ne t ra d e a nd adver ti si ng. S peci fi cal l y, St aya rtal l ege s that v ar i ous features o f G oo gl e’ s s ear ch e n g i n e v i o l a t e h e r r i g hto fp u b l i c i t y b y u s i n gh e r n a me to tr i gge r sponsor ed l i nks, ads, and re l ate d sear ches to m e d ica tio n s, in c lu d in g L ev itr a, C ialis , an d V iag ra , all ofwh i ch ar e t ra dem ar ks ofn atio nal l y a dvert i sed o ra l tr ea tment s f o r mal e er ec ti l e dys func ti o n. St aya rtdi re cts her al l ega ti ons at thr ee cor e features o fGo o g l e ’ s s e a r c h e ng i ne: Go o g l e S ug g e s t, AdWo r ds an d Sp o n s o re d L in ks , an d R ela te d Sea rc h es . G oo gle Su gg es t is an au to m at ed to ol th at rec om m en d s a d d it i o na ls e a r c h qu e r i e s wh e n a u s e r b e g i ns t o ty pe de scr i ptiv e w or d s o r p h ra se s in to th e s ea rc h en gin e. T h es e a d d iti onalse ar ch queri es deri ve fro m an a l gor i thm that tr acks and anal yzes a l lqueri es run byi nter net use rs . Googl e S ugges t l i sts the m ostpopula r com bi na tion ofte rm s use d by ind i vi du als conducti ng i denti cal orr el ate d sear ch queries. Fo r exam ple , i fa userty pes “c hi ca g o ” i nt o Goo g l e’ s se ar ch en g i ne , ev en be f ore the us erpre sse s “ enter, ” Goo gl e r eco m m ends sev er al sea rche s: “chi cago tr ibune, ” “ chi cago bea rs , ” “ chi cago w eath er, ” an d “ch ic a g o sun tim es.” On e of Stayart’s4 N o. 11

- 3012

com pla i nts i s that when a userenters “ b ev stay ar t” i nto G oo gle ’s s ea rc h en gin e, G oo gle Su gg es t a u to m at ic ally re c om m en d s a n ad d itio n al s ea rc h for “ b ev st ay ar t le vit ra .” G oo gle ’s p aid p lac em en t a d ve rt isin g p ro gr am is cal l ed “A dW or ds. ” Un der thi s p ro gram , an a dvert i ser can bi d on speci fi c k eywords o r ke yword phrases
. W hen an i nter net use r conducts a sea rch f oro n e of th e k eyw or d s o r ke yw or d p h ra se s, G oo gle au to m at ica lly em bed s u p to eleven “ sp ons ored l inks” to th e ad vertiser’s w ebsi te on e ach se ar ch r esul ts page. Goog l e e ar ns a fee each tim e a use r cli cks on a spon sored l ink. Stayart furtherco m pla i ns thata sea rch for“be v s tay ar t l evi tr a” tr i gge rs the displ ay ofa Googl e S ponsor ed L in k for Levi tr a o n the sea rch re sul ts page. Googl e’ s s ear ch r esul ts page fre quentl y d isp l ays l i nks to add i t i o na ls e a r c h qu e r i e s r e l a t e d t o the o ne e xe c ut ed by the use r. A n i nter net use r can ac cess thes e “R elat ed Se ar ches” on the l eft-h and si de ofthe sea rch page und er“s how o pti ons” orbycl i cki ng o n a l i nk tha t s ays “mor e l i k e th i s. ” On the search r es ul ts pa g e f o r the q u er y “bev sta yar t l evi tr a, ” Goo gl e di spl ays l i nks t o ad d itio n al s ea rc h es re lat ed to “b ev st ay ar t” an d “L ev itr a.” A ccor ding to St aya rt, m any of these l i nks l ead to ev en mor e Go o g l e S po ns o r e d Li nk s f o r a wi de r v a r i e ty of er ecti l e dysfuncti on t re atm ents. St aya rt ’ s co m pla i nt al l ege s that Goo gl e v i ol ate d W i sc on sin Sta tu te § 99 5 .5 0 ( 2)(b ), w h ich p ro te c ts an ind iv i d u a l ’ s r i g h to fp r i v a c y, b y mi s a p p r o p r i a t i n gh e r n a me t o g e ne r a t e fi na nc i a lr e v e nu e thr o ugh o nl i ne t r a de a nd a dv e r t i s i ng . S he a l s o a sse r t e d a c o mm o n- l a w mi s a p-N o. 11

- 3012 5 p rop riati on claim
. Th e d is t rict court gran ted Go ogle’s m otion to d ism iss w ith p rej ud ice, fi nd ing th at Stayart f ai l ed to st ate a plausibl e cl ai m f orr el i efbec ause Googl e m er el y r epor ts the r esults o f its se ar ch ofpubl i cl y a vai l abl e websi tes
. S tay ar t a pp eal s.
II. A N A L Y S IS W e r eview the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on o n a m oti on to d ism iss for fa ilu re to st at e a cla im d e n ov o. Wi l s on v. P ri ce, 624 F.3d 389 , 391 (7th C ir. 2010). W i sco nsi n re cogni zes a ri ght o fpri vacy, W i s. S tat
. § 9 95. 50, thati ncl ud es a pro hibi ti on o n m i sappropri ati on, o r “[ t] he use, f oradver ti si ng purpose s or f or pur po se s o ft r ade , of the n ame, po r tr ai t o r pi ctur e o fa ny l i vi ng per son, witho ut having fi rs t obtained the wri tte n c on se nt o fthe perso n . . . . ” Id. § 99 5.5 0(2 )(b ). W isc on sin co m m o n l aw a l so pr o hibi ts misapp r o pr i at i o n. Se e H irsc h v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. , 280 N
. W
. 2d 129, 134 (W is. 1979). W e r e c e nt l y e xpl or e d the h i s t o r y o fWi s c o ns i n’ s mi s a ppropri ati on pro vi si on a nd not ed th at it w as m odel ed on N ew Yor k’ s pri vacyst atute
. See B o gie v . Ro senberg , ___ F.3d ___, 2013 W L 1741 13, at *3 (7th Cir. Jan. 17, 201 3). A n d be c au se W isc on sin ’s la w “s h all b e in te rp re te d in ac c or d an c e w ith th e d ev elo p in g c om m on la w o f p riv ac y . . . w i th due r ega rd f orm ai ntai ni ng fre edom o f co m m unica

ti on, pri vate l y a n d thro ugh the m edi a, ” W i s. S tat
. § 9 95. 50( 3), we deter m i ned that “so und anal ysi s” ofW i sconsin’s pri vacyst atute “incl ud es consi derat i on o f th e d evel o pi ngc o m m o n l aw o fpr i va cyi n W i sc o ns i n,6 N o. 11

- 3012

as w el las i n other j uris d icti ons, es peci al l y in N ew York
. ” B ogie, 20 13 W L 17411 3, at* 3. Ou r anal ysi s o fW isconsi n’s m i sappropri ati on l aw i n B ogiel ed us to affi rm W i sco nsi n’s r eco gni ti on o f th e n ew sw or thi ness orpubli c i nter estexce pti on t o i ts m is a p p ro p ria tio n law
. Id. at*8; s e eRand v. He ar tCorp. , 29 8 N .Y .S.2d 40 5, 40 9 (A p p . D iv. 1 9 6 9), aff’d 25 7 N
. E.2 d 895, 89 6 ( N
. Y. 19 70) ( sta ti n g that phra ses such a s “a d ve rt isin g p u rp os es ” an d fo r th e “p u rp os es o f t ra d e . . . m u st be const rued nar ro w l y a nd notused to curt ail th e r i g h t o f fr e e s p e e c h, o r fr e e p r e s s , o r t o s h u t o fft he pu bl i cati on o fm att er s newsw or thy o r ofpubli c i nter est, or to p re ve n t c om m en t o n m at te rs in w h ich th e p u b lic ha s ani nt er es t o r the r i g htt o b e inf o r m ed” )
. In B ogie, w e also co ncl ud ed that the deve l opi ng r i ght o fpri vacy i ncl ud es an i nci dentaluse excepti on that a pp l i es i n W i sco ns i n. Bo gie, 2 01 3 W L 1 74 11 3, a t * 9. The se exc epti o ns a p p l y t o r e n d e r S t a y a r t ’ s mi s a p p r o p r i a t i o n c l a i ms aga i nst inter estse ar ch engines futi l e. “[ W ] he re a m at te r o fl eg i ti m at e publ i c i nt er es t i s co nc er n ed , no ca u se of ac tio n for in va sio n of p riv ac y w ill l i e. ” V a n S trat en v . M ilw a uk ee Jou rna l New spa per-P ubli sher, 4 4 7N. W
. 2d 10 5 , 1 1 2 ( W i s . Ct
. App
. 1 9 8 9 )
. And the a ppli cabi l i ty ofthe pu bl i c i nter estexce pti on pre sents a q ue st i o n o fl a w. Bo gie, 20 13 W L 17411 3, at* 8. Court s bro adlydefi ne m att er s of publ i c i nter estand have appl i ed th e ex ce pti o n t o c o ns um eri nt er es t ar ti cl es , scie nti fi c i nter estpi eces , pol i ti calr epor ts, so ci altr ends, m ovi es, and d oc um entar i es. Id. (c olle c tin g c as es ); Fin ger v. O m niPub l ’ ns Int ’ l, Lt d. , 566 N
. E
. 2d 141, 144 ( N
. Y
. 1990).N o. 11

- 3012 7 The sea rch ter m “be v s ta ya rt l evi tr a” i s a m att ero f p u b lic in te re st p rim ar ily b ec au se Sta ya rth as m ad e it o ne

— an d , give n th e c u rre n t l a w s u i t, en su re s t h at it re m ai ns so . In Jan uary20 10

— f o urmonths b efo r e sh e fi l e d this law su it

— sh e filed a law su it a ga in st Y ah oo ! in fede ra lco urt, al l eging tha t i ts sea rch ass i st feature sugges ted the phrase “be v s tay ar t l evi tr a” w hen s h e typed “bevst aya rt, ” in vi ol ati o n o fWi s c o nsi n’s m i sappropri ati on l a w. Se e Stayart v. Ya hoo ! Inc. , No
. 2 : 10- cv - 0 0 0 4 3

- LA ( E. D. W is. fil ed J an . 1 9, 2 01 0)
. In h erc o m pl ainti n the i ns ta nt case , S tay ar t a l l ege s that “ Googl e’ s m i sap p ro pri ati on o f B ev Sta ya rt ’s n am e a n d liken es s b eg an atlea st as ea rly as February 1, 2010
. . . , ” the m onth a ftershe sued Yahoo! o ve r the sa m e s ea r chphr as e. And a l lthe s ea r ch es s he att aches to her com pla i nt were executed in A pri l20 10. Cou r t do cument s, i ncl udi ngS ta y ar t’ s co m pl ainta nd the di str i ct c ourt ’ s 2 011 or der di sm i ssing tha t co m pla i nt, ar e m at te rs of p u b lic in te re st
. Cf. In reC ont ’ l Il l
. Se c. Li t ig. , 732 F. 2d 1302 , 13 14 ( 7th Cir. 1 984) ( The publi c has an i nt er es t i n th e f ai r ne ss o f co ur ts an d j udg es , an d the pu bl i c has a r ight ofacc ess , “guarant eed bythe fi rs t am endm ent, to i nfo rm ati on be f or e the c ou rtr el ating to m atters ofpub l i c i nt er es t. ”)
. I t f o l l o ws tha t i fc o ur t do cum ents w ar ra nt the publi c i n te re st excepti on, the sea rch pr ovide r s an d i nde xe s th atl ea d the pub l i c to tho se do cum en ts or that cap tu re key term s related to them are l i kewis e e nti tl ed to thatexce pti on. To the exte nt that St ay ar t h as or w ou ld a r gu e t h at G oo gle ’s p ro fit m oti ves und er m i ne the r el i ance o n the publ i c i nter est ar gum en t, th e e xc ept i o n a ppl i es e ve n whe n the e nti ti es shar i ng the i nfo rm ati on do so “l ar gel y, and ev en8 N o. 11

- 3012 pri m ar i l y, to m ake a profi t. ” D avi s v. H igh Soc ’y M agazi ne, 457 N
. Y
. S. 2d 308, 313 (A p p . Div. 1982). The i nci dentalu se excepti on a l so l i m i ts the a pp l i catio n of W isc on sin ’s m isa p p ro p ria tio n law
. B ogie, 2 0 1 3 WL 1741 13 , at * 9. “F o r us e o f a per so n’ s na m e for ad vert i sing or tra d e p u rp os es to be ac ti o n a b l e u n d er W isc on sin l aw , ‘ th er e m ust be a substa nti alr atherthan an incid en tal co nnec ti o n b et wee n t he us e an d t he defe nd ant’ s co m m er ci alpurpose. ’ ” Id. ( quo tingSt ayar tv. Yaho o! Inc. , 20 11 W L 36252 42, at* 2 ( E .D. W i s. A ug. 17, 20 11 ) )
. Nothi ngi n S ta yar t’ s th i r ty
- pag e co m pl aint

— 139 pages w i th at tachm ents

— su gge sts thatthe connect i on between S tay ar t’ s nam e a nd Goog l e’ s e ff or ts to ge nera te re ve n u es th ro u gh its u se is “s u b st an tia l rat h er t h an inc ide nt al
. ” Id. ( qu otation m arks om itted ). In fact, Stayart’s com pla i nt and the hund red s o fpages o fat tachm ents and supp l em entaldocum ents sh e h as fi l ed sugge st that th e te r m “levi tra” a nd no t S ta y ar t’ s na m e tr i g g er s th e er ecti l e dysfuncti on ads. But eve n i fGoog l e’ s use o f her nam e were substa nti al, i t would s ti l lbe enti tl ed to th e publ i c i nt er es t ex ce pti o n.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe re aso ns set for th abo ve, we A FFIRM the dist ri ct cour t’ s deci si on g ra nti ng Goog l e’ s m oti on t o dism i ss.

3- 6- 13