SAN MATEO, CA — In a ruling issued last Friday and publicized yesterday, Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a lawsuit challenging the means by which Google Inc. determines the search rankings returned by queries to the Google.com search engine.In March of last year, KinderStart filed an action against Google claiming violation of the right to free speech under both the U.S. and California Constitutions, attempted and actual monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act, violations of the Communications Act, unfair competition and unfair practices under California Business and Professions Code, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation and libel and “negligent interference with prospective economic advantage,” according to court documents.

Throughout his ruling, Judge Fogel expresses the Court’s determination that KinderStart failed to establish a basis for its claims, even after being directed in an earlier ruling issued by the court to provide additional support for the claims in an amendment to the suit.

With respect to the libel and defamation claims, for example, Fogel notes that in his July, 2006 ruling “The Court dismissed the defamation and libel claim in the FAC on the basis that KinderStart had failed to explain how Google caused injury to it by a provably false statement about the output of Google’s algorithm regarding KinderStart.com, as distinguished from an unfavorable opinion about KinderStart.com’s importance.”

Judge Fogel notes that while KinderStart did amend its libel and defamation claim, in so doing the company essentially just added new allegations, and those allegations were equally lacking in support.

“The core of these allegations seems to be that KinderStart was harmed as a result of a false statement by Google that Google had determined objectively that the KinderStart website was not worth visiting, when in fact Google objectively had determined the opposite,” Judge Fogel writes in his March 16th opinion. “However, the allegations are vague and ambiguous, and KinderStart makes only general claims as to the type of injury it allegedly suffered.”

In addition to dismissing the case, Judge Fogel also imposed sanctions, not yet defined, against legal counsel for KinderStart, Gergory Yu.

“The Court concludes that the allegation that Google sells priority placement in its results should not have been made based upon the limited information identified by Yu,” Judge Fogel writes in the order granting sanctions against KinderStart. “As presented to the Court on this motion, Yu’s purported evidence is either double hearsay or hearsay speculation as to the ‘mysterious’ causes of improvement in a website’s position in Google’s search results.”

Judge Fogel directed Google to file a motion for attorneys’ fees within 14 days of the issuance of Friday’s ruling, stating that the court “will determine the amount of monetary sanctions after receiving Google’s submission and Yu’s response.”

Yu, who works for the firm Global Law Group of San Mateo, told Reuters that “all options are being explored,” and refused to comment further on the case.

In a written statement issued by Google, litigation counsel Hilary Ware stated that the company “always felt these claims were unjustified, because courts have consistently rejected complaints over search engine rankings, so we’re pleased that Judge Fogel promptly dismissed this case.”