SerpApi Fights Google Over SERP Scraping Lawsuit
▼ Summary
– SerpApi filed a motion to dismiss Google’s DMCA lawsuit, challenging Google’s legal standing to bring the case as it is not the copyright holder of the scraped content.
– The company argues the DMCA protects copyright owners, not platforms like Google that display third-party content such as images in Knowledge Panels or Shopping results.
– SerpApi disputes that bypassing Google’s SearchGuard system constitutes illegal circumvention under the DMCA, stating it accesses publicly visible pages without descrambling or decrypting works.
– The motion cites a Supreme Court ruling, arguing Google’s alleged injuries (like infrastructure costs) fall outside the DMCA’s intended protections for copyright holders.
– The case’s outcome could set a precedent for whether platforms can use the DMCA to block automated access to publicly available content that includes licensed third-party material.
The legal battle between SerpApi and Google has escalated, with SerpApi formally requesting the court dismiss the search giant’s lawsuit. This motion, filed two months after Google initiated the case under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), contests not just the technical accusations but the very foundation of Google’s legal standing to sue. The core of the dispute revolves around whether Google, as a platform displaying content created by others, can claim copyright protection under the DMCA for that aggregated material. SerpApi contends that the law is designed to protect actual copyright holders, not intermediaries who compile and show third-party work.
SerpApi’s CEO, Julien Khaleghy, articulated this position clearly, stating that the information surfaced in Google’s search results belongs to the original publishers, authors, and creators. “Google is a website operator,” Khaleghy wrote. “It is not the copyright holder of the information it surfaces.” The company’s legal filing argues that only a legitimate copyright owner can authorize the access controls protected by the DMCA. By attempting to assert these rights, SerpApi claims Google is acting without the knowledge or consent of the actual content creators whose work appears in features like Knowledge Panels, Shopping results, and Maps.
The motion delves deeper, invoking a significant Supreme Court precedent. It references the 2014 ruling in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., which established that a plaintiff must demonstrate injuries within the specific “zone of interests” a law was intended to protect. SerpApi posits that Google’s alleged harms, such as infrastructure costs and lost advertising revenue from automated queries, fall outside the scope of what the DMCA was built to address. This challenges the applicability of the statute to Google’s business-model complaints.
Beyond the question of standing, SerpApi directly disputes the characterization of its actions as “circumvention.” Google’s original complaint alleged that SerpApi employed tactics like solving JavaScript challenges, rotating IP addresses, and mimicking human browsing behavior to bypass its SearchGuard anti-scraping system. However, Khaleghy argues that the DMCA’s definition of circumvention involves acts like descrambling or decrypting a work, or impairing an access system. “We access publicly visible web pages, the same ones accessible to any browser,” he stated. “We do not break encryption. We do not disable authentication systems.” The company frames SearchGuard as a bot-management tool rather than a genuine technological measure controlling access to copyrighted material.
The implications of this case extend far beyond the two parties involved. If the court accepts Google’s legal theory, it could establish a precedent allowing any online platform that displays licensed third-party content to use the DMCA to restrict automated access to publicly viewable web pages. This would significantly alter the landscape for data aggregation and research tools. The motion adds a critical layer to the initial debate about whether SearchGuard qualifies for DMCA protection; SerpApi argues that even if it does, Google is not the appropriate entity to enforce it.
This legal argument finds some parallel in a recent, separate ruling. In December 2025, a U.S. District Judge dismissed a DMCA anti-circumvention claim brought by Ziff Davis against OpenAI, which was tied to the use of robots.txt files. The judge found that Ziff Davis failed to plausibly allege that a robots.txt directive constitutes an effective technological measure controlling access under the law. While Google’s SearchGuard is a more sophisticated system than a simple robots.txt file, both cases probe the same fundamental boundary: the extent to which the DMCA can be weaponized to control automated access to content that is otherwise publicly available on the open web.
Looking forward, a hearing on SerpApi’s motion to dismiss is scheduled for May 19, 2026. Google is expected to file its formal opposition before that date. Notably, SerpApi is involved in similar litigation, having also moved to dismiss a separate lawsuit filed by Reddit in October. That case, which also names companies like Perplexity and Oxylabs, similarly tests the use of DMCA anti-circumvention claims to challenge automated data collection from publicly accessible websites. The outcomes will likely provide crucial guidance on the limits of copyright law in the age of large-scale web data analysis.
(Source: Search Engine Journal)
