The Court concluded in its July 13th Order that KinderStart had failed to allege facts sufficient to support each of the four elements of an attempted monopolisation claim ... The Court also noted that KinderStart had not sufficiently described the markets relevant to its claim. The SAC (second amended complaint) suffers from essentially the same defects."

"The Court dismissed the defamation and libel claim in the FAC (first amended complaint) 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 ... "KinderStart's allegations are vague and ambiguous, and KinderStart makes only general claims as to the type of injury it allegedly suffered … KinderStart still has failed to identify a provably false statement."

The judge also imposed yet-to-be-determined sanctions on KinderStart's lawyer Gregory Yu for making unsupported allegations against Google.

KinderStart.com LLC v. Google, Inc., C 06-2057 JF (N.D. Cal. March 16, 2007)

Opinion dismissing the lawsuit / Opinion granting sanctions

• March 21, 2007: Williams, Chris, Judge boots out Google delisting suit, The Register:
  "A US federal judge has thrown out a defamation suit against Google, brought after the advertising firm's PageRank search engine relegated parenting links site KinderStart.com."

• March 20, 2007, Goldman, Eric, KinderStart v. Google Dismissed--With Sanctions Against KinderStart's Counsel, Technology & Marketing Law Blog