Google v. SerpApi: Threatening Access to Public Data

I joined SerpApi as General Counsel in December 2025. Days later, Google sued us. No prior outreach. No attempt at dialogue. Just a lawsuit against a company whose business Google has known about for years. The complaint misrepresents both the law and what we do.

Here’s what SerpApi actually does: we provide programmatic access to search results that are publicly visible to anyone using a standard web browser, in a manner that is respectful and fair. Our API responses are consistent with how those results are presented in search pages with links and citations back to original sources. We do not bypass authentication. We do not access private accounts. We do not retrieve non-public data. We do not claim ownership over the underlying content. All of this is publicly documented on our website, including how our APIs work, the sources we rely on, and the limits we impose.

We operate with openness because we believe in democratizing access to public data. This is not about ownership or entitlement; it's about access and usability. Information that is visible to the public only becomes meaningfully accessible when it can be used under predictable and objective conditions, not dictated by the whims of tech monopolists.

SerpApi reached out to Google multiple times to explore potential collaboration. We received no response. We remain open to talking, but Google’s decision to litigate rather than engage raises a larger question: what is this lawsuit really about?

Google’s Suit Affects You, Too

At its core, Google seeks to use a little-known provision of copyright law as a weapon to control access to public information that it does not own. But that law was written to protect encrypted DVDs and software from piracy, not to let platforms block access to publicly visible web content.

Google claims that its “SearchGuard” protocols should be given the same status as logins, passwords, and encryption. However, Google’s SearchGuard is a euphemism for its traffic management tools. It does not attempt to protect copyrighted works from being copied. Google’s operational concerns and dislike of automated search (unless, of course, it's the one doing the automated searching) are not copyright issues. Treating them as copyright-enforcement mechanisms would stretch the law far beyond its intended purpose, threaten anyone who wants access to public data, and create a dangerously reckless lane for future suppression of innovation.

If the courts accepted Google’s theory, the consequences would extend well beyond this dispute. Any website could attempt to limit access to publicly visible information simply by layering on traffic controls and then invoking copyright law. Google’s theory would give it a powerful new weapon to restrict competition through litigation rather than innovation.

Google’s tactics are not coincidental. It targets many of the products and tools that compete with the search giant, and the consequences could be devastating for SerpApi's customers and anyone who builds or relies on public data. Developers building AI-driven systems that need real-time information would face higher costs and fewer viable paths to market. Security researchers investigating exposed systems or emerging threats could face new legal uncertainty. Academic researchers studying misinformation, market dynamics, or search behavior could be deterred from working with meaningful datasets. Accessibility tools that help users interact with content in new ways could be constrained.

Rules For Thee, And Not For Me

Google’s position in its lawsuit against SerpApi is difficult to reconcile with its own history and with the arguments it has made publicly and in court. Google built its business by systematically accessing, indexing, and organizing publicly available information across the web. By its own admission, this kind of access is central to the operation of search.

Yet suddenly, in its allegations against us, Google advances the opposite position. When SerpApi enables developers and organizations to access publicly visible search results to build competing products across a myriad of meaningful use cases, Google calls it unlawful. Their rules change depending on who benefits.

Google’s antitrust liability makes this worse. A federal court already found that Google holds and unlawfully maintains monopoly power in general search. In that case, Google emphasized the openness of its search engine and the fact that users can access results without logging in. They argued that open access to search supports competition.

Now Google is suing to restrict access to the same publicly displayed information when others rely on it to build competing systems, including AI-driven tools that increasingly depend on real-time information. The effect is to raise rivals’ costs and limit competition.

This case is not about whether companies can protect their infrastructure. Remember, Google has already made its choice to display its search results publicly, without requiring users to log in. This case is about whether copyright law should be transformed into a weapon to control access to public information.

What Comes Next

SerpApi will defend itself and won't back down from what we do, which is within the bounds of fair use principles. We will also pursue appropriate remedies to ensure a fair and competitive environment.

We will continue to operate with the same transparency and discipline that have defined our approach. Developers and researchers who rely on access to public search data will have our support. Our decisions will reflect clear boundaries, not ad hoc enforcement.

I joined SerpApi because I believe this work matters. A free and open internet does not sustain itself. It depends on thoughtful design, predictable rules, and restraint in how power is exercised, especially by those with the greatest influence over how information flows. We know where we stand: monopolists do not get to play by a separate set of rules.

In the interest of transparency, we are making the full complaint available below:

Questions? Contact press@serpapi.com.