Dmoz Lawsuits

Yes but CNN doesnt have a Contract / Agreement for submitting your news that I know of anyway. I just believe that if a service is offered and terms are related to that service than the company / directory that offers those terms/service should up hold their TOS.

On second thought though since you are the forum Admin I agree with you 100%

 

Those are listing guidelines. No where does it say they will accept all sites that meet the qualifications. I also believe there needs to be an exchange of consideration and DMOZ is free. DMOZ not including a site doesn't directly harm the site. It's not like they are posting something critical about it.

A third party (Google) might give the site a slight boost (I also do not believe a DMOZ listing carries very much weight these days) but that's beyond DMOZ's control. If you posted a list of the top 5 best areas to live, can I sue you because you listed my area as number 5 (not #1) or didn't list it at all?

A DMOZ listing can be very subjective, and acceptance criteria weight is going to vary with individual editors. A site may meet all listing requirements, but an editor may reject it because they feel the subject doesn't offer content that is better or greatly different from other sites already listed. Of course most website owners feel their site is better

I have spent rather large sums of money over the years in legal fees for causes I believed in. I defended, on pure principal, a suit from a huge corporation and even though I won in the end, I don't think I would do it again. It is easy to spend six figures on legal fees before even getting to trial. Even if you win, you must prove damages, and aren't likely to be awarded legal fees. I don't think any DMOZ listing is worth what a suit would cost - even if I thought the case had a chance of being successful. JMO

How do you even know a site was rejected vs. not yet reviewed? You cannot reject a site without stating the reason in the editors comments.

 

Regrettably, the word “submission” in ODP public documents projects ambiguity that needs to be addressed. Since the submissions are certainly not what the word implies, the guidelines to suggest a URL should be updated. This issue may come up for discussion inside ODP very soon.

 

Would it be wrong to say you submit a suggestion?

 

But DMOZ doesn't offer a service to list your site.
Remember people who suggest sites aren't DMOZ customers but they are suppliers to DMOZ.

Thinking about this and possible lawsuits.
DMOZ has strict guidelines describing which sites may be suggested in in which format (including title and description) this should be done. Everyone suggesting a site signs this agreement.

Some questions (just for fun)
1) Could DMOZ file a lawsuit against people who suggest sites which are stated in the guidelines we will not list

2) Could DMOZ file a lawsuit against people who spam the directory with multiple suggestions

3) Will DMOZ ever file such a lawsuit

4) Do you think people will stop spamming the directory if DMOZ would announce they could file lawsuits

 

Nothing wrong with that . The problem is, the way this word is used in ODP documentation. Removing ambiguity can only help enhance the understanding of ODP in general and site review process in specific.

 

I would imagine a restraint of trade lawsuit could be filed if you could prove an editor purposely didnt list his competitors, and upon proper complaint to dmoz administrators, nothing was done to rectify the situation.

Being sucessful would be another matter, but I bet if you survived the motion to dismiss - you'd get a reasnable settlement offer from the defendants because such a lawsuit would bring a plethera of bad press to both dmoz and google.

You could also such google into this due to the google directory, and in to process, (again, if you survive the motion to dismiss) gain some access via discovery, to the google algorythm - because part of your suit wouuld allege the restraint of trade also affected your search engine rankings within google.

IF you survive long enough to get to discovery, I bet you would find some pretty good settement offers being conveyed.

 

I think if some one decides to do this, it will be better to look at criminal code instead of civil code. Nobody can deny the importance of Google for any web site business and since Google directory is solely supplied by DMOZ, it can be argued the AOL and DMOZ editors are attempting to monopolize which is a felony.

Anyway, if you are interested then you can read more about it here:


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15_10_1.html

 

An individual cannot bring criminal charges. Anyone is free to use the DMOZ feed. Just because Google is one of thousands who choose to do so, it doesn't mean DMOZ is attempting to monopolize anything. As far as I know, they don't try to force anyone to use their directory and google is free to start its own, or use any other directory they want. Without any monetary gain to DMOZ, what would be the damages? If you had ten websites in a sector, and google decided on its own to list them #1 - #10, could the Attorney General bring charges against you because you were monoplizing the top ten rankings?

 

You dont understand the point.

If you can show a DMOZ editor is not listing competitor sites while listing his own, and DMOZ, upon complaint, does nothing, ou MAY be able to push a restraint of trade claim.

Now, you may or may not win, but I dont think it would get to that point. If you survive the motion to dismiss then I think such a case would likely settle because the defendant(s) would not want to go through discovery.

And, Google could be sucked in because theyonly feed their directory via DMOZ and you could allege search results are improved due to listing or non listing in the directory and DMOZ. I think you could make enough of a showing to include them.

Again, the big hurdle is the Motion to Dismiss - get by that, and you'll be offered a settlement because Google nor DMOZ will want to comply with discovery nor want the negative PR.

 

To break that down further, and law-wise I guess you would have to prove absolute intent to cause commercial/financial damage to another webmaster

It is allowed for a Dmoz editor to list their own site as long as it has been disclosed ( that's not exactly secret). But I'd just wonder how you could prove 'beyond doubt' that a volunteer hasn't listed a site due to 'monetary or commercial reasons' ? Wouldn't the word 'volunteer' kind of put the kibosh on things ?
What if they just haven't been able to log in for a month or two due to real world commitments (ie my wife's having a baby etc etc ). I don't think any legal system in the world would be able to 'prove' otherwise really. And even then, as pointed out, you are talking in terms of one editor and not the whole organisation per se.

How does one sue a volunteer contributor who gives their own voluntary time to any organisation ? Or sue an organisation based soley on volunteer contributions ?
I'd guess the worst that would happen if it went to court is that ONE particular volunteer would be booted if there was any doubt towards their intentions within a category. But then again, thats usually what happens within the system anyway if there are questionable concerns over an editor.

 

Well, we can agree to disagree. There is absolutely no way google could be included because of something an editor in another company might have done. How could google offer to settle for a non-DMOZ listing anyway? Google has no control over what DMOZ does. Google could spend millions fighting anyone crazy enough to spend a hundred thousand on a stupid DMOZ listing. I'm sure google has dozens of lawsuits filed against them every year. It's just a normal part of business and discovery isn't anything they would be worried about. I ran a Nadaq listed company (a fraction of the size of google) and I didn't spend two seconds worrying about these types of frivolous complaints - and DMOZ doesn't even have a share price to affect.

I think people are giving DMOZ way too much credit- and I think the majority of these people don't have a site listed and think it is the Holy Grail of SERPS. It isn't.

DMOZ is a very small part of the google algorithm. A non-listing isn't preventing any site from listing well. You can rank #1 for any keyword without a DMOZ listing. You are also talking about two free services. There is abosolutely no right to be listed in either google or DMOZ.

Does a DMOZ listing help with SERPS? Sure, a little bit. I have over 40 sites and about 10 are DMOZ listed. If I showed you ranking results for all sites, you would be unable to tell which ones had a DMOZ listing and which ones didn't. It's impossible to put an exact percentage on how much a listing helps, but I think you are talking about taking a site that is ranked #15 and with a DMOZ listing it might move up 1-3 spots- at most. It doesn't move a site ranked #100 to #50 or anything close to that. DMOZ editors are also supposed to rewrite listing descriptions to prevent keyword stuffing. How you describe your site isn't likely to show even if you are listed.

Do I wish all my sites were DMOZ listed? Sure I do... but I also know that building relevant backlinks will help SERPS much more than a DMOZ listing. My best performing sites are not DMOZ listed - Some of my highest ranking competitive keyword sites aren't listed either.

I think there is a shroud of mystery that surrounds DMOZ - which comes mostly from their arrogant attitude of not letting people know the status of their application combined with the reality that some sites sit unreviewed for over three years. I don't think people realize the vast volumes of sites that are submitted to a rather small proportion of volunteer editors. The majority of sites submitted to DMOZ shouldn't be listed anyway. I think over 90% of the sites submitted were clearly created to run Adsense or other forms of advertising. Some of these sites are very well done and deserve to be listed because they contain quality content - but most contain "filler content" that isn't any different than a hundred other sites.

If somehow you had proof a specific editor was corrupt, then maybe you could have a chance of some type of legal action, but do you really want to spend thousands of dollars chasing after it? You might get a corrupt editor removed but there is no way they are going to be forced to list a site. There are so many reasons you can deny a listing, much of them subjective, you could reject almost any site if you really wanted to.

A paid yahoo listing will bring you 50X or 100X the traffic a DMOZ listing will (which isn't saying anything). I know it can be an ego thing - and people take it personal because they feel it is like someone telling them their site isn't good enough. And yes, I'm sure there are corrupt editors.... but there are shady people in any type of business. If someone really wants to spend $20K to $50K going after a corrupt editor (and you aren't going to be awarded legal fees even if you win)... well then more power to them. I stopped spending large sums of money on legal fees years ago. The people really making out are the attorney's.

 

When you suggest/submit a site you agree to:

Its pure fantasy that any sort of legal action get anywhere..

 

I think these are good points. The suit might well fail but it's probably only a matter of time before someone is willing to give it a try.

I'm not sure you'd even have to show that an editor was listing his own sites - only that he was listing some sites which met DMOZ criteria and failing to list others that also meet the criteria. It could certainly be argued that this would confer an unfair advantage on the listed site(s) and an unfair disadvantage on unlisted ones of equal quality and also meeting DMOZ criteria.

 

Since there is no contract with DMOZ regarding any "submissions" or "suggestions", if you argue that DMOZ has no obligation to list or even review a "suggested" site, you cannot at the same time argue that the individual making the "suggestion" is bound in any way by any implied DMOZ contract. For a contract to be valid, there must be some benefit accruing to both parties to that contract.

Your quotes have about as much validity as those parking lots and restaurants which post signs saying they are not responsible for anything at all no matter what happens and who gets hurt. They and DMOZ can post as many of those disclaimers as they wish. If someone does incur damages which can be linked to actions taken or not taken by the person posting the disclaimer, the disclaimer will provide no legal protection whatsoever.

 

I understand that an individual can not bring criminal charges but an individual can save a lot of money by collecting and documenting as much information as possible and send it to justice department and different states legal department. With so many state prosecutors and federal prosecutor, it is possible that you can find one that can think charging AOL and DMOZ will be good for his/her career. They have the money and power to prosecute and it doesn't cost you anything, if they win the case then I am sure many law firms will be interested to participate in a class action case for all the web site owners that were denied.

This is kind of what SUN, Oracle, Netscape did with Microsoft. Supply the government with ammunition and then let them pay for the cost.

 

One important point that you've over looked in this statement. The exchange of money.

When you pay someone for parking you are renting space and they are taking responsibility for the car. A sign that says they are not responsible is bogus.

A restaurant you pay for service is taking certain responsibilities so again disclaimers mean nothing.

DMOZ takes no payment and nothing is guaranteed.

 

Folks, and I mean this in the nicest way, you all clearly dont know anything about how lawsuits work, and are making arguments that are contrary to common civil law practice.

You keep coming back to proving this or proving that. You only need to prove the elements at trial. The case will never make it that far.

All you have to show at a motion to dismiss is that, under the law, if your allegations are proven, that would be entitled to win and collect under the law. Read what I just said again please.

This case would never make it to trial.

There is enough disussion here alone, not to mention other sites, that there are editors who are corrupt, and editors that list their own sites and dont list competitors, tomake a showing that DMOZ knows or should know of the problem. Same with Google. Google knows or should know that DMOZ has problems with credibility and integrity.

How do I tie google into it? They know or should know that some editors do this and still apply weight to the DMOZ listings. Before you file you send google an email explaining the problem with DMOZ excluding you from their listings because of unfair business practices, and asking them to list you in the google directory anyway. When they dont, or send you one of those nice little form letters, you got them involved.

All you need to do is allege things like that to get past the motion to dismiss. Now comes discovery. In discovery, you are able to ask for documents and depositions from the defendants. What would part of your discovery be? Asking Google to reveal how being listed in DMOZ or not listed affects a website's search engine rankings. That equates to Google having to reveal at least part of their algo.

Im not saying you would win at trial, im not saying this is lock solid case. But cases are filed every day that are smewhat flimsy, but a plaintiff has a right to put his case to a jury if his allegations are legally sound. And Google nor DMOZ would want to fight this case. Too much would come out via discovery and too much bad PR as well as the cost. They would want to settle such a case.
-

 

You would have to prove or be able to demonstrate I believe that in fact those volunteers are benefitting commercially by not only including their own sites, but also excluding their competitors' which would be an abuse of that system that was initially set up for everyone to contribute to the internet rather than manipulate directory listings and search engine results in order to fit their own agenda.

 

Not so. You don't need to prove that someone else is benefiting - only that you are being put at some financial disadvantage or are losing money due to some sort of discrimination or unfair practice.