Beverly Stayart v. Google Incorporated
710 F.3d 719
7th Cir.2013Background
- Stayart sues Google in Wisconsin federal court alleging misappropriation of her name to generate ad revenue via Google Search features.
- She claims Google uses her name in conjunction with Levitra/Cialis/Viagra ads via Google Suggest, AdWords/Sponsored Links, and Related Searches.
- Stayart previously sued Yahoo! in 2010 over the same search phrase “bev stayart levitra,” keeping the public interest in the phrase active.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim; Stayart appeals.
- Wisconsin’s misappropriation statute § 995.50(2)(b) and common law protect against using a living person’s name for advertising without consent; exceptions may apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether public interest forecloses an actionable misappropriation claim | Stayart argues the phrase is newsworthy and thus actionable | Google contends public interest exception applies, foreclosing a privacy misappropriation claim | Public interest exception applies; claims fail under this standard |
| Whether incidental-use limits the misappropriation claim | Stayart asserts substantial link between her name and Google's revenues | No substantial connection; use is incidental to advertising | Incidental-use exception applies; no substantial link to Google's ads |
| Whether the complaint states a plausible misappropriation claim | Stayart asserts misappropriation by triggering ads with her name | Google merely reports public search results; no plausible claim | Complaint fails to state a plausible misappropriation claim under Wisconsin law |
Key Cases Cited
- Rand v. Heart Corp., 298 N.Y.S.2d 405 (App. Div. 1969) (public interest and privacy considerations in misappropriation context)
- In re Cont’l Ill. Sec. Litig., 732 F.2d 1302 (7th Cir. 1984) (court access and public interest considerations in complex actions)
- Van Straten v. Milwaukee Journal Newspaper-Publisher, 447 N.W.2d 105 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989) (public interest exception to invasion of privacy; broad definitional scope)
- Davis v. High Soc’y Magazine, 457 N.Y.S.2d 308 (App. Div. 1982) (public interest/publicity considerations in magazine context)