Days after Google filed a lawsuit against SerpApi on December 19, 2025, the Texas-based API provider published a defiant response on January 23, 2026, reframing the legal confrontation as a clash over public data access rather than copyright protection. Chad Anson, who joined SerpApi as General Counsel in December 2025, issued a detailed statement that positions the company's web scraping services as essential infrastructure for democratizing access to publicly visible search results that Google displays to any user with a standard browser.

The lawsuit represents Google's second major scraping enforcement action against SerpApi within months, following Reddit's October 22, 2025 complaint that named the company alongside Oxylabs, AWMProxy, and Perplexity AI for allegedly circumventing technological controls. According to Anson's statement, Google provided no prior outreach or dialogue before initiating litigation against a business the search giant has known about for years. "The complaint misrepresents both the law and what we do," Anson wrote in the January 23 blog post.

SerpApi operates by providing programmatic access to search results visible to any user accessing Google through conventional means. The company emphasizes that its API responses maintain links and citations to original sources, consistent with how Google presents information in standard search pages. "We do not bypass authentication. We do not access private accounts. We do not retrieve non-public data," according to the statement. The company's documentation describes how its APIs work, the sources they rely on, and the operational limits imposed.

The legal confrontation centers on interpretation of Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, legislation originally crafted in 1998 to prevent circumvention of technological measures protecting copyrighted works. Google's complaint alleges that SerpApi systematically circumvents SearchGuard, the traffic management system Google deployed in January 2025 to distinguish human users from automated bots. According to Google's lawsuit, SerpApi processes hundreds of millions of automated search requests daily, with volume increasing as much as 25,000 percent over the past two years.

Anson challenges the application of DMCA provisions to traffic management systems. "That law was written to protect encrypted DVDs and software from piracy, not to let platforms block access to publicly visible web content," according to the statement. The company argues that Google's SearchGuard constitutes a euphemism for traffic management tools rather than technological measures designed to protect copyrighted works from unauthorized copying. "Google's operational concerns and dislike of automated search (unless, of course, it's the one doing the automated searching) are not copyright issues."

The legal theory underlying Google's complaint could establish significant precedent affecting access to publicly displayed information across the internet. According to Anson's analysis, accepting Google's position would enable any website to restrict access to publicly visible information by layering traffic controls and then invoking copyright law. The potential consequences extend beyond web scraping services to affect developers building AI-driven systems requiring real-time information, security researchers investigating exposed systems, academic researchers studying misinformation or search behavior, and accessibility tools helping users interact with content.

SerpApi attempted multiple times to initiate collaboration discussions with Google before litigation commenced. "We received no response," according to the statement. The company maintains openness to dialogue despite Google's decision to pursue legal action rather than engagement. This communication breakdown contrasts with industry practices where platforms typically send cease-and-desist letters or technical notifications before filing federal lawsuits.

The case arrives amid intensifying tensions between Google and data access services throughout 2025. Google eliminated the n=100 SERP parameter on September 14, 2025, fundamentally altering how SEO platforms retrieve search result data by forcing tools to make 10 separate requests instead of a single call to retrieve 100 results. When DataForSEO announced a workaround reducing SERP API costs by 80 percent on October 18, Google identified and blocked the solution within five days, forcing the company to revert to standard methods.

Anson draws attention to tensions between Google's current legal position and the company's historical approach to web content. Google built its search business by systematically accessing, indexing, and organizing publicly available information across the internet. "By its own admission, this kind of access is central to the operation of search," according to the statement. The company now advances the opposite position when other entities enable developers to access publicly visible search results for competing products.

The contradiction becomes more pronounced in light of Google's antitrust liability. A federal court found in August 2024that Google holds and unlawfully maintains monopoly power in general search, controlling approximately 90% of the online search market overall and 95% on smartphones. During that litigation, Google emphasized the openness of its search engine and the fact that users can access results without logging in, arguing that open access supports competition.

According to Anson's analysis, Google now sues to restrict access to the same publicly displayed information when others rely on it to build competing systems. "The effect is to raise rivals' costs and limit competition," the statement notes. The timing proves particularly significant as AI-driven tools increasingly depend on real-time information sources to power retrieval-augmented generation systems and training datasets. Penske Media filed an antitrust lawsuit on September 12, 2025 alleging Google systematically coerces publishers into providing content for AI systems without compensation while reducing website traffic.

The DMCA framework underlying Google's claims provides statutory damages ranging from $200 to $2,500 for each act of circumvention. Given that SerpApi allegedly processes hundreds of millions of automated queries, potential liability could theoretically exceed the company's reported annual revenue of several million dollars. This exposure distinguishes copyright-based enforcement from traditional contract or terms of service violations that typically limit damages to actual harm proven at trial.

Google's Terms of Service Agreement explicitly forbids automated access to search content "in violation of the machine-readable instructions on our web pages (for example, robots.txt files that disallow crawling, training, or other activities)." The complaint describes how SerpApi developed circumvention methods immediately after SearchGuard's January 2025 deployment. SerpApi markets its capabilities openly, promising customers they "don't need to care about … captcha, IP address, bots detection, maintaining user-agent, HTML headers, [or] being blocked by Google."

A recent SerpApi blog post acknowledged that SearchGuard made web scraping "more difficult" but claimed the company was "fortunate to be minimally impacted" because its services had "already pre-solved Google's JavaScript challenge." This public acknowledgment of technical countermeasures could strengthen Google's circumvention claims under DMCA provisions prohibiting both the act of circumvention and trafficking in circumvention technologies.

SerpApi's business extends beyond Google to encompass multiple search engines and platforms. The company advertises APIs for Amazon, Bing, DuckDuckGo, eBay, Walmart, Yelp, YouTube, and numerous other services. This diversified portfolio creates vulnerability to similar legal challenges from other platforms investing in anti-scraping technologies. Amazon blocked AI bots from major tech companies in August 2025, updating its robots.txt file to prohibit crawlers from Meta, Google, Huawei, Mistral, and other technology firms.

The lawsuit unfolds against broader industry tensions over data collection practices and AI training material. Over 80 media executives gathered in New York during the week of July 30, 2025, under the IAB Tech Lab banner to address what many consider an existential threat to digital publishing. Research data presented showed over 35 percent of top websites now block OpenAI's GPTBot, while HUMAN Security documented 107 percent year-over-year increases in scraping attacks.

Anson frames the case as fundamentally about whether copyright law should transform into a weapon for controlling access to public information. "This case is not about whether companies can protect their infrastructure," according to the statement. Google already made its choice to display 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."

SerpApi commits to defending itself while maintaining its operational approach. "We won't back down from what we do, which is within the bounds of fair use principles," Anson states. The company will pursue appropriate remedies to ensure what it characterizes as a fair and competitive environment. The transparency extends to making the full complaint available to the public, demonstrating the company's willingness to engage with the legal arguments openly.

The legal confrontation raises questions about asymmetrical power dynamics in content distribution. Google operates as the internet's largest scraper, extracting billions of web pages for search indexing and AI training. The company faced an antitrust lawsuit from Penske Media alleging coercion of publishers into supplying content for AI systems. European publishers filed formal antitrust complaints with the European Commission targeting AI Overviews features.

SerpApi positions its services as essential for developers and researchers requiring access to public search data. "Developers and researchers who rely on access to public search data will have our support," according to the statement. The company emphasizes that information visible to the public only becomes meaningfully accessible when it can be used under predictable and objective conditions rather than dictated by what Anson characterizes as "the whims of tech monopolists."

The case could establish precedent affecting how courts interpret DMCA protections when applied to dynamically generated content containing third-party copyrighted material. Traditional Section 1201 cases often involve circumventing access controls for entertainment media like DVDs or video games. Applying the same framework to protect search engine security measures represents a novel legal approach with significant implications for platform protection measures.

Industry observers note the lawsuit's timing coincides with intensifying regulatory scrutiny of data scraping practices. The European Commission filed a case against Google in June 2023 alleging unlawful abuse of monopoly power in digital advertising and seeking breakup of advertising technology business components. Multiple major publishers including The Atlantic, Vox Media, and Dotdash Meredith filed comprehensive antitrust lawsuits seeking damages for Google's advertising technology monopolization.

SerpApi emphasizes its belief in transparent operations and predictable rules for information access. "A free and open internet does not sustain itself," according to the statement. The company argues that internet freedom depends on thoughtful design, predictable rules, and restraint in how power is exercised, particularly by entities with the greatest influence over information flow. "We know where we stand: monopolists do not get to play by a separate set of rules."

The statement concludes with a declaration of the company's operational approach and values. "We will continue to operate with the same transparency and discipline that have defined our approach," Anson wrote. The full complaint was made available through SerpApi's website to enable public examination of Google's legal arguments and the company's defense strategy.

The case presents technical questions about whether traffic management systems designed to protect infrastructure operations qualify for DMCA technological protection measures originally intended for content encryption and access controls. Courts will need to determine whether SearchGuard functions primarily to protect copyrighted works or to manage server load and prevent abuse of computational resources.

Legal precedent from previous DMCA cases focused on circumvention of encryption technologies protecting digital content like CSS protections on DVDs or access controls on video game consoles. The application to web scraping scenarios represents relatively uncharted territory in copyright enforcement, particularly where the underlying content remains publicly accessible through standard browsers.

SerpApi's defense strategy appears to center on challenging the characterization of SearchGuard as a technological protection measure under DMCA provisions. The company argues that Google's traffic management concerns, while legitimate operational considerations, do not constitute copyright protection mechanisms eligible for Section 1201 protections. This distinction could prove crucial in determining whether Google's legal theory withstands scrutiny.

The outcome will affect not only web scraping services but potentially any automated access to publicly visible internet content. Developers building competitive intelligence tools, price monitoring systems, content aggregation platforms, and research applications all depend on programmatic access to publicly displayed information. An expansive interpretation of DMCA protections for traffic management systems could fundamentally alter the technical architecture underlying internet information flows.

Academic researchers studying online behavior, misinformation spread, search engine bias, and digital platform dynamics rely on systematic data collection from public sources. Security researchers investigating exposed systems, vulnerable configurations, and emerging threats require automated tools for comprehensive analysis. Both communities could face new legal uncertainty if traffic controls qualify for DMCA protection regardless of their relationship to copyrighted content.

SerpApi maintains that its approach respects legitimate boundaries while enabling access to publicly displayed information. The company describes its operations as "respectful and fair" in providing programmatic access to search results. The fundamental question remains whether companies that display information publicly to anyone with a browser can then use copyright law to prevent others from systematically accessing that same information for competitive or research purposes.

The legal battle arrives as Google confronts unprecedented regulatory pressure across multiple markets. Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled on April 17, 2025 that Google illegally monopolized publisher ad server and ad exchange markets. The remedies trial concluded November 21, 2025, with a ruling expected between January and February 2026. Judge Amit Mehta issued comprehensive remedies on September 2, 2025, for Google's search monopoly, including data-sharing requirements and syndication services.

Google's simultaneous confrontation with antitrust challenges across search, advertising technology, and now data access creates what industry observers describe as a critical juncture for digital platform regulation. The combined proceedings could reshape multiple markets where Google maintains dominant positions, with cascading effects throughout digital advertising ecosystems and competitive intelligence industries.

SerpApi filed a lawsuit on January 21, 2026, against former contractor Zilvinas Kucinskas and his company SearchApi for allegedly stealing proprietary technology and trade secrets. The complaint seeks $47 million in damages, claiming Kucinskas systematically copied SerpApi's source code, customer lists, and business methods to build a competing service. The timing creates a remarkable situation where SerpApi simultaneously defends against Google's copyright claims while prosecuting its own intellectual property theft case.

The parallel litigation highlights tensions inherent in web scraping business models. Companies like SerpApi argue they provide legitimate access to publicly visible information while simultaneously claiming proprietary rights in their technical implementations and customer relationships. This duality raises questions about where legitimate competition ends and improper appropriation begins in markets built on accessing and repackaging content created by others.

Industry participants will watch closely as courts navigate these competing claims about data access rights, technological protection measures, and competitive boundaries. The legal principles established could determine whether programmatic access to public information remains viable or whether platforms can use copyright enforcement to restrict systematic data collection regardless of the public visibility of the underlying content.

Timeline

Summary

Who: SerpApi LLC, a Texas-based company founded in 2017 providing automated web scraping services through API subscriptions, is defending against a lawsuit filed by Google LLC. Chad Anson, who joined SerpApi as General Counsel in December 2025, issued the company's response. Google filed the complaint through General Counsel Halimah DeLaine Prado via Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati attorneys.

What: SerpApi published a comprehensive defense on January 23, 2026, responding to Google's December 19, 2025 lawsuit alleging violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The statement challenges Google's characterization of SearchGuard traffic management systems as technological protection measures eligible for DMCA protections, arguing the law was designed to protect encrypted content from piracy rather than enable platforms to block access to publicly visible information through copyright enforcement.

When: The response was published on January 23, 2026, four days after Google filed its lawsuit on December 19, 2025, and weeks after Chad Anson joined as General Counsel in December 2025. Google deployed SearchGuard in January 2025, with SerpApi allegedly developing circumvention methods immediately thereafter.

Where: The dispute centers on access to Google Search results visible to any user with a standard web browser. Google filed its complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. SerpApi operates from Austin, Texas, providing services globally to developers, researchers, and businesses requiring programmatic access to search data.

Why: The case represents a fundamental conflict over whether publicly displayed information can be protected from systematic access through copyright law. SerpApi positions its services as democratizing access to public data essential for AI development, competitive intelligence, security research, and academic studies. Google argues the company circumvents technological measures protecting copyrighted content licensed from third parties appearing in search features, seeking statutory damages and injunctive relief to halt scraping operations that process hundreds of millions of automated queries daily.

Share this article
The link has been copied!