figure 2. how clearer search-engine optimization guidelines would affect stakeholders.
+ less risk of lawsuits
– slightly less freedom
+ Able to guarantee clients that
their practices are accepted
+ optimization gets easier
– less value of inside knowledge
+ easier Website
optimization for search engines
+ less risk of sudden ranking demotion
+ increased relevance of results
al Trade Commission in 2002 recommending search engines ensure that
“paid […] results are distinguished
from non-paid results with clear and
conspicuous disclosures,” 16 all major
search engines implemented such
practices. Also, self-regulation would
help the process of regulation keep up
with the pace of technological change.
Finally, as clearer guidelines would arguably favor all stakeholders, search
engines would at least join the public
dialogue on self-regulation.
Policymakers could signal the importance of targeted manipulation
and initiate a dialogue on self-regulation by creating a committee of key
stakeholders to examine cases of rank
demotion and recommend ways to
improve today’s optimization guidelines. In addition, the topic of search-engine regulation could be put on the
agenda of the next United Nations
Internet Governance Forum ( www.in-tgovforum.org).
Self-regulation alone may not alle-
viate concern about rank demotion.
One idea from the Internet’s early
days may chart another way forward.
As disputes over domain names be-
came more heated in the 1990s and
U.S. trademark law proved insuffi-
cient, the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (www.
icann.org) and the World Intellectual
Property Organization (www.wipo.
int) developed the Uniform Domain-
Name Dispute-Resolution Policy
( www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp.htm) to
promote quick and inexpensive reso-
lution of domain-name conflicts. 6 A
similar body could help establish new
optimization guidelines and manage
the mediation process.
Here, we’ve argued for the need to
open a debate on how to regulate
targeted ranking manipulation that
hinders search-engine optimization.
These practices threaten democracy
and free speech, fairness, market efficiency, autonomy, and freedom
from deception. Making the case for
regulation can be based on the search
market’s failure of information asymmetries and concentration of market
power over an essential product in a
private entity. Our analysis of specific
regulatory proposals and their implications for stakeholders highlights
the benefits of establishing clearer
guidelines for optimizers.
1. anderson, e. Value in Ethics and Economics. Harvard
university press, cambridge, ma, 1993.
2. Battelle, J. The Search: How Google and Its Rivals
Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our
Culture. nicholas Brealey publishing, London, 2005.
3. Bracha, o. and pasquale, f. Federal Search
Commission? Access, Fairness and Accountability in
the Law of Search. university of texas public Law
research paper no. 123, austin, tX, 2007.
4. Breyer, s. typical justifications for regulation. In A
Reader on Regulation, r. Baldwin, c. scott, and c.
Hood, eds. oxford university press, new york, 1998,
5. chandler, J. a right to reach an audience: an
approach to intermediary bias on the Internet.
Hofstra Law Review 35, 3 (spring 2007), 1095–1139.
6. Davis, g. the Icann uniform domain name dispute
resolution policy after nearly two years of history.
e-On TheInternet (Jan./feb. 2002); http://www.isoc.
7. elkin-Koren, n. Law, Economics and Cyberspace.
edward elgar publishing, cheltenham, u.K., 2004.
8. fishkin, r. White-hat cloaking: It exists, it’s
permitted, it’s useful. SEOMoz Blog (June 30, 2008);
9. fontenot, D. matt cutts, Why am I still being
punished? SEO Scoop (Jan. 24, 2008); http://www.
10. forsyth, H. google mp? How the Internet Is
Challenging Our Notions of Political Power.
presentation at pembroke college Ivory tower
society, cambridge, u.K. (Jan. 28, 2008).
11. goldman, e. KinderStart v. Google dismissed:
With sanctions against Kinderstart’s counsel.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog (mar. 20, 2007);
12. goldman, e. search engine bias and the demise of
search engine utopianism. Yale Journal of Law &
Technology 8 (spring 2006), 188–200.
13. google, Inc. Webmaster Tools Help Cloaking, Sneaky
14. greenberg, a. condemned to google hell. Forbes
(apr. 4, 2007); http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/29/
15. grimmelmann, J. the structure of search engine law.
Iowa Law Review 93, 1 (nov. 2007), 3–63.
16. Hippsley, H. Letter from FTC to Search Engines
Regarding Commercial Alert Complaint Requesting
Investigation of Various Internet Search Engine
Companies for Paid Placement and Paid Inclusion
Programs. federal trade commission, Washington,
D.c., June 27, 2002; http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/
17. Introna, L.D. and nissenbaum, H. shaping the Web:
Why the politics of search engines matters. The
Information Society 16, 3 (2000), 169–185.
18. miles-Lagrange, V. SearchKing, Inc. v. Google
Technology, Inc. cIV-02-1457-m.u.s. District court
for the Western District of oklahoma, 2003.
19. mitchell, r.K., agle, B.r., and Wood, D.J. toward a
theory of stakeholder identification and salience:
Defining the principle of who and what really counts.
The Academy of Management Review 22, 4 (oct.
20. pasquale, f. Rankings, Reductionism, and
Responsibility. seton Hall public Law research paper.
seton Hall university, south orange, nJ, feb. 25,
21. pitofsky, r. The Essential Facility Doctrine Under
United States Antitrust Law. federal trade
commission, Washington, D.c., 2001; http://www.
22. sherman, c. search engine users: Loyal or blasé?
Search Engine Watch (apr. 19, 2004); http://
23. sullivan, D. google penalizes google Japan for buying
links. Search Engine Land (feb. 11, 2009); http://
24. sullivan, D. google ombudsman? search
ombudsman? great idea: Bring them on!
Search Engine Watch (July 2006); http://blog.
25. Wall, a. strategic content as marketing for link
building. SEO Book (may 8, 2008); http://www.
Patrick Vogl ( email@example.com) is a graduate of the mphil
in technology policy at the Judge Business school,
university of cambridge, u.K.
Michael Barrett ( firstname.lastname@example.org) is a reader in
Information technology and Innovation and Director of
programmes at the Judge Business school, university of
cambridge, u. K.
© 2010 acm 0001-0782/10/1100 $10.00