Days after Google filed a lawsuit in opposition to SerpApi on December 19, 2025, the Texas-based API supplier published a defiant response on January 23, 2026, reframing the authorized confrontation as a conflict over public knowledge entry reasonably than copyright safety. Chad Anson, who joined SerpApi as Basic Counsel in December 2025, issued an in depth assertion that positions the corporate’s internet scraping companies as important infrastructure for democratizing entry to publicly seen search outcomes that Google shows to any person with a typical browser.

The lawsuit represents Google’s second main scraping enforcement motion in opposition to SerpApi inside months, following Reddit’s October 22, 2025 complaint that named the corporate alongside Oxylabs, AWMProxy, and Perplexity AI for allegedly circumventing technological controls. In line with Anson’s assertion, Google supplied no prior outreach or dialogue earlier than initiating litigation in opposition to a enterprise the search large has recognized about for years. “The grievance misrepresents each the regulation and what we do,” Anson wrote within the January 23 weblog submit.

SerpApi operates by offering programmatic entry to look outcomes seen to any person accessing Google by typical means. The corporate emphasizes that its API responses keep hyperlinks and citations to authentic sources, according to how Google presents info in normal search pages. “We don’t bypass authentication. We don’t entry non-public accounts. We don’t retrieve personal knowledge,” in line with the assertion. The corporate’s documentation describes how its APIs work, the sources they depend on, and the operational limits imposed.

The authorized confrontation facilities on interpretation of Part 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, laws initially crafted in 1998 to stop circumvention of technological measures defending copyrighted works. Google’s grievance alleges that SerpApi systematically circumvents SearchGuard, the visitors administration system Google deployed in January 2025 to differentiate human customers from automated bots. In line with Google’s lawsuit, SerpApi processes lots of of hundreds of thousands of automated search requests each day, with quantity growing as a lot as 25,000 % over the previous two years.

Anson challenges the appliance of DMCA provisions to visitors administration programs. “That regulation was written to guard encrypted DVDs and software program from piracy, to not let platforms block entry to publicly seen internet content material,” in line with the assertion. The corporate argues that Google’s SearchGuard constitutes a euphemism for visitors administration instruments reasonably than technological measures designed to guard copyrighted works from unauthorized copying. “Google’s operational issues and dislike of automated search (except, after all, it is the one doing the automated looking) should not copyright points.”

The authorized idea underlying Google’s grievance might set up vital precedent affecting entry to publicly displayed info throughout the web. In line with Anson’s evaluation, accepting Google’s place would allow any web site to limit entry to publicly seen info by layering visitors controls after which invoking copyright regulation. The potential penalties lengthen past internet scraping companies to have an effect on builders constructing AI-driven programs requiring real-time info, safety researchers investigating uncovered programs, tutorial researchers finding out misinformation or search conduct, and accessibility instruments serving to customers work together with content material.

SerpApi tried a number of instances to provoke collaboration discussions with Google earlier than litigation commenced. “We acquired no response,” in line with the assertion. The corporate maintains openness to dialogue regardless of Google’s determination to pursue authorized motion reasonably than engagement. This communication breakdown contrasts with business practices the place platforms sometimes ship cease-and-desist letters or technical notifications earlier than submitting federal lawsuits.

The case arrives amid intensifying tensions between Google and knowledge entry companies all through 2025. Google eliminated the n=100 SERP parameter on September 14, 2025, basically altering how website positioning platforms retrieve search end result knowledge by forcing instruments to make 10 separate requests as an alternative of a single name to retrieve 100 outcomes. When DataForSEO introduced a workaround decreasing SERP API prices by 80 % on October 18, Google identified and blocked the solution within five days, forcing the corporate to revert to straightforward strategies.

Anson attracts consideration to tensions between Google’s present authorized place and the corporate’s historic method to internet content material. Google constructed its search enterprise by systematically accessing, indexing, and organizing publicly accessible info throughout the web. “By its personal admission, this type of entry is central to the operation of search,” in line with the assertion. The corporate now advances the other place when different entities allow builders to entry publicly seen search outcomes for competing merchandise.

The contradiction turns into extra pronounced in mild of Google’s antitrust legal responsibility. A federal court found in August 2024that Google holds and unlawfully maintains monopoly energy typically search, controlling roughly 90% of the web search market general and 95% on smartphones. Throughout that litigation, Google emphasised the openness of its search engine and the truth that customers can entry outcomes with out logging in, arguing that open entry helps competitors.

In line with Anson’s evaluation, Google now sues to limit entry to the identical publicly displayed info when others depend on it to construct competing programs. “The impact is to boost rivals’ prices and restrict competitors,” the assertion notes. The timing proves significantly vital as AI-driven instruments more and more rely on real-time info sources to energy retrieval-augmented technology programs and coaching datasets. Penske Media filed an antitrust lawsuit on September 12, 2025 alleging Google systematically coerces publishers into offering content material for AI programs with out compensation whereas decreasing web site visitors.

The DMCA framework underlying Google’s claims gives statutory damages starting from $200 to $2,500 for every act of circumvention. Provided that SerpApi allegedly processes lots of of hundreds of thousands of automated queries, potential legal responsibility might theoretically exceed the corporate’s reported annual income of a number of million {dollars}. This publicity distinguishes copyright-based enforcement from conventional contract or phrases of service violations that sometimes restrict damages to precise hurt confirmed at trial.

Google’s Phrases of Service Settlement explicitly forbids automated entry to look content material “in violation of the machine-readable directions on our internet pages (for instance, robots.txt recordsdata that disallow crawling, coaching, or different actions).” The grievance describes how SerpApi developed circumvention strategies instantly after SearchGuard’s January 2025 deployment. SerpApi markets its capabilities overtly, promising clients they “needn’t care about … captcha, IP handle, bots detection, sustaining user-agent, HTML headers, [or] being blocked by Google.”

A current SerpApi weblog submit acknowledged that SearchGuard made internet scraping “harder” however claimed the corporate was “lucky to be minimally impacted” as a result of its companies had “already pre-solved Google’s JavaScript problem.” This public acknowledgment of technical countermeasures might strengthen Google’s circumvention claims beneath DMCA provisions prohibiting each the act of circumvention and trafficking in circumvention applied sciences.

SerpApi’s enterprise extends past Google to embody a number of serps and platforms. The corporate advertises APIs for Amazon, Bing, DuckDuckGo, eBay, Walmart, Yelp, YouTube, and quite a few different companies. This diversified portfolio creates vulnerability to comparable authorized challenges from different platforms investing in anti-scraping applied sciences. Amazon blocked AI bots from major tech companies in August 2025, updating its robots.txt file to ban crawlers from Meta, Google, Huawei, Mistral, and different know-how corporations.

The lawsuit unfolds in opposition to broader business tensions over knowledge assortment practices and AI coaching materials. Over 80 media executives gathered in New York in the course of the week of July 30, 2025, beneath the IAB Tech Lab banner to handle what many contemplate an existential menace to digital publishing. Analysis knowledge introduced confirmed over 35 % of prime web sites now block OpenAI’s GPTBot, whereas HUMAN Safety documented 107 % year-over-year will increase in scraping assaults.

Anson frames the case as basically about whether or not copyright regulation ought to rework right into a weapon for controlling entry to public info. “This case isn’t about whether or not corporations can shield their infrastructure,” in line with the assertion. Google already made its option to show search outcomes publicly with out requiring customers to log in. “This case is about whether or not copyright regulation ought to be remodeled right into a weapon to regulate entry to public info.”

SerpApi commits to defending itself whereas sustaining its operational method. “We can’t again down from what we do, which is inside the bounds of truthful use ideas,” Anson states. The corporate will pursue acceptable cures to make sure what it characterizes as a good and aggressive surroundings. The transparency extends to creating the total grievance accessible to the general public, demonstrating the corporate’s willingness to interact with the authorized arguments overtly.

The authorized confrontation raises questions on asymmetrical energy dynamics in content material distribution. Google operates because the web’s largest scraper, extracting billions of internet pages for search indexing and AI coaching. The corporate confronted an antitrust lawsuit from Penske Media alleging coercion of publishers into supplying content material for AI programs. European publishers filed formal antitrust complaints with the European Fee focusing on AI Overviews options.

SerpApi positions its companies as important for builders and researchers requiring entry to public search knowledge. “Builders and researchers who depend on entry to public search knowledge could have our assist,” in line with the assertion. The corporate emphasizes that info seen to the general public solely turns into meaningfully accessible when it may be used beneath predictable and goal situations reasonably than dictated by what Anson characterizes as “the whims of tech monopolists.”

The case might set up precedent affecting how courts interpret DMCA protections when utilized to dynamically generated content material containing third-party copyrighted materials. Conventional Part 1201 circumstances typically contain circumventing entry controls for leisure media like DVDs or video video games. Making use of the identical framework to guard search engine safety measures represents a novel authorized method with vital implications for platform safety measures.

Trade observers observe the lawsuit’s timing coincides with intensifying regulatory scrutiny of knowledge scraping practices. The European Fee filed a case in opposition to Google in June 2023 alleging illegal abuse of monopoly energy in digital promoting and in search of breakup of promoting know-how enterprise parts. A number of main publishers together with The Atlantic, Vox Media, and Dotdash Meredith filed complete antitrust lawsuits in search of damages for Google’s promoting know-how monopolization.

SerpApi emphasizes its perception in clear operations and predictable guidelines for info entry. “A free and open web doesn’t maintain itself,” in line with the assertion. The corporate argues that web freedom depends upon considerate design, predictable guidelines, and restraint in how energy is exercised, significantly by entities with the best affect over info stream. “We all know the place we stand: monopolists don’t get to play by a separate algorithm.”

The assertion concludes with a declaration of the corporate’s operational method and values. “We are going to proceed to function with the identical transparency and self-discipline which have outlined our method,” Anson wrote. The total grievance was made accessible by SerpApi’s web site to allow public examination of Google’s authorized arguments and the corporate’s protection technique.

The case presents technical questions on whether or not visitors administration programs designed to guard infrastructure operations qualify for DMCA technological safety measures initially supposed for content material encryption and entry controls. Courts might want to decide whether or not SearchGuard capabilities primarily to guard copyrighted works or to handle server load and forestall abuse of computational sources.

Authorized precedent from earlier DMCA circumstances targeted on circumvention of encryption applied sciences defending digital content material like CSS protections on DVDs or entry controls on online game consoles. The appliance to internet scraping situations represents comparatively uncharted territory in copyright enforcement, significantly the place the underlying content material stays publicly accessible by normal browsers.

SerpApi’s protection technique seems to heart on difficult the characterization of SearchGuard as a technological safety measure beneath DMCA provisions. The corporate argues that Google’s visitors administration issues, whereas official operational concerns, don’t represent copyright safety mechanisms eligible for Part 1201 protections. This distinction might show essential in figuring out whether or not Google’s authorized idea withstands scrutiny.

The end result will have an effect on not solely internet scraping companies however probably any automated entry to publicly seen web content material. Builders constructing aggressive intelligence instruments, worth monitoring programs, content material aggregation platforms, and analysis purposes all rely on programmatic entry to publicly displayed info. An expansive interpretation of DMCA protections for visitors administration programs might basically alter the technical structure underlying web info flows.

Educational researchers finding out on-line conduct, misinformation unfold, search engine bias, and digital platform dynamics depend on systematic knowledge assortment from public sources. Safety researchers investigating uncovered programs, susceptible configurations, and rising threats require automated instruments for complete evaluation. Each communities might face new authorized uncertainty if visitors controls qualify for DMCA safety no matter their relationship to copyrighted content material.

SerpApi maintains that its method respects official boundaries whereas enabling entry to publicly displayed info. The corporate describes its operations as “respectful and truthful” in offering programmatic entry to look outcomes. The basic query stays whether or not corporations that show info publicly to anybody with a browser can then use copyright regulation to stop others from systematically accessing that very same info for aggressive or analysis functions.

The authorized battle arrives as Google confronts unprecedented regulatory strain throughout a number of markets. Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled on April 17, 2025 that Google illegally monopolized writer advert server and advert change markets. The cures trial concluded November 21, 2025, with a ruling anticipated between January and February 2026. Judge Amit Mehta issued comprehensive remedies on September 2, 2025, for Google’s search monopoly, together with data-sharing necessities and syndication companies.

Google’s simultaneous confrontation with antitrust challenges throughout search, promoting know-how, and now knowledge entry creates what business observers describe as a vital juncture for digital platform regulation. The mixed proceedings might reshape a number of markets the place Google maintains dominant positions, with cascading results all through digital promoting ecosystems and aggressive intelligence industries.

SerpApi filed a lawsuit on January 21, 2026, in opposition to former contractor Zilvinas Kucinskas and his firm SearchApi for allegedly stealing proprietary technology and trade secrets. The grievance seeks $47 million in damages, claiming Kucinskas systematically copied SerpApi’s supply code, buyer lists, and enterprise strategies to construct a competing service. The timing creates a outstanding scenario the place SerpApi concurrently defends in opposition to Google’s copyright claims whereas prosecuting its personal mental property theft case.

The parallel litigation highlights tensions inherent in internet scraping enterprise fashions. Corporations like SerpApi argue they supply official entry to publicly seen info whereas concurrently claiming proprietary rights of their technical implementations and buyer relationships. This duality raises questions on the place official competitors ends and improper appropriation begins in markets constructed on accessing and repackaging content material created by others.

Trade individuals will watch intently as courts navigate these competing claims about knowledge entry rights, technological safety measures, and aggressive boundaries. The authorized ideas established might decide whether or not programmatic entry to public info stays viable or whether or not platforms can use copyright enforcement to limit systematic knowledge assortment whatever the public visibility of the underlying content material.

Timeline

Abstract

Who: SerpApi LLC, a Texas-based firm based in 2017 offering automated internet scraping companies by API subscriptions, is defending in opposition to a lawsuit filed by Google LLC. Chad Anson, who joined SerpApi as Basic Counsel in December 2025, issued the corporate’s response. Google filed the grievance by Basic Counsel Halimah DeLaine Prado through Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati attorneys.

What: SerpApi printed a complete protection on January 23, 2026, responding to Google’s December 19, 2025 lawsuit alleging violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The assertion challenges Google’s characterization of SearchGuard visitors administration programs as technological safety measures eligible for DMCA protections, arguing the regulation was designed to guard encrypted content material from piracy reasonably than allow platforms to dam entry to publicly seen info by copyright enforcement.

When: The response was printed on January 23, 2026, 4 days after Google filed its lawsuit on December 19, 2025, and weeks after Chad Anson joined as Basic Counsel in December 2025. Google deployed SearchGuard in January 2025, with SerpApi allegedly creating circumvention strategies instantly thereafter.

The place: The dispute facilities on entry to Google Search outcomes seen to any person with a typical internet browser. Google filed its grievance in the USA District Court docket for the Northern District of California. SerpApi operates from Austin, Texas, offering companies globally to builders, researchers, and companies requiring programmatic entry to look knowledge.

Why: The case represents a elementary battle over whether or not publicly displayed info could be shielded from systematic entry by copyright regulation. SerpApi positions its companies as democratizing entry to public knowledge important for AI growth, aggressive intelligence, safety analysis, and tutorial research. Google argues the corporate circumvents technological measures defending copyrighted content material licensed from third events showing in search options, in search of statutory damages and injunctive reduction to halt scraping operations that course of lots of of hundreds of thousands of automated queries each day.


Share this text


The hyperlink has been copied!




Source link