Handwritten Lawsuit Against Google Tossed Out Again On Appeal

from the somehow-the-Supreme-Court-seems-unlikely-to-take-this-case dept

Remember the infamous handwritten lawsuit against Google from last year? The one where the guy accused Google of revealing his social security number through a bizarre coded algorithm that involved the Philadelphia 76ers basketball team? Luckily, that lawsuit was quickly thrown out of court, but amazingly, the guy appealed. Eric Goldman now informs us that the appeal has now also been thrown out as the court notes: “Google and its founders are not state actors, and Jayne’s allegation concerning his coded social security number does not constitute a violation of the Constitution or federal law.” Indeed. While the lawsuits have been getting tossed rather quickly, lawsuits like these do still clog the court system and waste plenty of taxpayer dollars. In the meantime, in case you missed it the first time, here’s one of the handwritten filings in the lawsuit.

Filed Under: ,
Companies: google

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Handwritten Lawsuit Against Google Tossed Out Again On Appeal”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
14 Comments
Jeremy Boyd says:

#2

Trojan John, despite whatever benefits may come from restricting the ability to bring suit to those who can pay certain fees, the disadvantages are disproportionately considerable. In this case, Mr. Jayne filed under the “in pauperis” regulations in his county/state/district. Apparently you’d like to remove such an ability.

Even though *this* case is illegitimate, what would we make of legitimate cases under your proposed scheme? The impoverished could never file suit, even when it was justified.

I’d rather pay for illegitimate lawsuits than remove the right of the poor to sue the rich altogether.

Willton says:

Re: Re: #2

How about a counter proposal. Let’s make a fine for frivolous lawsuits. The person who brought it up would have to pay all the court costs and lawyer fees. And their lawyer gets nothing for supporting it.

We already do. They are called Rule 11 Sanctions. See Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The problem is that you can’t fine somebody who has no money.

Willton says:

Re: Re: #2

How about a counter proposal. Let’s make a fine for frivolous lawsuits. The person who brought it up would have to pay all the court costs and lawyer fees. And their lawyer gets nothing for supporting it.

We already do. They are called Rule 11 Sanctions. See Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The problem is that you can’t fine somebody who has no money.

Michael Schmitt (profile) says:

He's worried...

… that his SS# is revealed to the world through Google, but by making this lawsuit, he’s given away his mailing address. Now, all we need is for him to write a check and we’ve got his bank account number and we can assume his identity.

He doesn’t need to worry about what Google is giving away as information… HE shouldn’t be giving this information away either!

Michael Schmitt (profile) says:

He's worried...

… that his SS# is revealed to the world through Google, but by making this lawsuit, he’s given away his mailing address. Now, all we need is for him to write a check and we’ve got his bank account number and we can assume his identity.

He doesn’t need to worry about what Google is giving away as information… HE shouldn’t be giving this information away either!

Willton says:

Re: He's worried...

… that his SS# is revealed to the world through Google, but by making this lawsuit, he’s given away his mailing address. Now, all we need is for him to write a check and we’ve got his bank account number and we can assume his identity.

Since he’s filing in forma pauperis (means “in the form of a poor person”), my guess is that he doesn’t have a bank account, or at least doesn’t have anything in one.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...