Locksmith Sues Google And Others Over Claims Of Allowing Ads By Illegitimate Companies

A Virginia-based company, Baldino’s Lock & Key Service, has filed a lawsuit against Google, Yellowbook and Ziplocal, in which it claims that the companies allow unlicensed locksmiths to advertise on their search engines. Baldino’s Lock & Key owner, Mark Baldino, claims that this has resulted in the loss of significant business over the past 7 years, and the company is seeking $8.4 million in damages.

Baldino claims that the search engines knowingly list pages of fraudulent and unlicensed locksmiths in search results. “We’re fighting for every service call we get, and my job is to make the phone ring, and it’s not ringing,” explained Baldino. “I believe it’s just plain old greed.”

In Virginia and Maryland, where the plaintiff operates, it is illegal to advertise as a locksmith without a license. The lawsuit alleges that Google and its co-defendants choose to not screen out unlicensed listings in an effort to inflate competition for SEO/SEM placement, as well as compelling legal locksmiths to “pay a premium” to appear in search results.

Baldino says that public records indicate that there are only 150 registered locksmiths in Maryland and 425 in Virginia, and claims that the defendants “knew [they were] publishing the names of hundreds of illegal locksmiths in Virginia and Maryland and deriving revenue, directly or indirectly, by doing so.” He has also stated his opinion that the public is harmed by the practice of allowing unlicensed locksmiths to appear in search results, as consumers are therefore being misled to believe that these companies are providing legitimate services.

The owner of Baldino’s Lock & Key argues that Google and the other defendants “deliberately mislead consumers by publishing false information with prior knowledge that the information is deception”, adding that he notified Google of the falsity of these locksmith listings but no action was taken to have them removed.

It is possible that Baldino is simply a frustrated business owner who is lashing out unfairly with these claims, however, there is precedent that may assist him in his case. Baldino’s allegations are similar to those against Google in the Canadian Pharmacy case, when the Justice Department claimed that Google knowingly sold and profited from illegal advertising involving Canadian Pharmacies. In that 2011 case, Google paid a staggering $500 million to settle with the U.S. Justice Department. This result may have provided Baldino with the impetus to move forward with his case against Google and the other co-defendants.

Marketers will be watching closely as this case unfolds. Will Google and the others choose to settle this case, or will they fight it out in court? There are certainly many incentives for fighting these allegations, however, if Baldino were to win in a trial, the result would be another precedent for them to be concerned about in future matters of this type. Even if the case does go to trial and the plaintiff wins, would he be able to justify a payout of $8.4 million in damages? We’ll be watching carefully to see how Google and the others choose to deal with the serious allegations contained in Baldino’s lawsuit.