The Google anti-scraping technology lawsuit reached an important stage when a federal judge dismissed Google’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act claims against search-data provider SerpApi on July 20, 2026. The ruling does not completely end the case because Google may revise a limited part involving copyrighted material displayed in certain search features.
Google filed Google LLC v. SerpApi, LLC on December 19, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Chief U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is handling the case.
Why Google Sued SerpApi
SerpApi operates a paid application programming interface that gathers Google Search results and supplies them to customers in a structured form. Developers, researchers and search-marketing businesses can use such services to analyse rankings and other search information.
Google alleged that SerpApi submitted hundreds of millions of automated queries and disguised them as searches performed by ordinary users. The complaint said SerpApi used changing internet addresses, simulated browsers and other techniques to avoid detection.
The dispute centres on SearchGuard, an anti-scraping system Google introduced in 2025. Google said the technology was designed to identify automated activity and restrict access to search pages. It accused SerpApi of developing methods to bypass SearchGuard after the system initially blocked its scraping operations.
These remain allegations. The court has not made a final finding that SerpApi acted unlawfully.
What Google Claimed Under the DMCA
Google did not bring a conventional copyright-infringement claim alleging that SerpApi directly copied works owned by Google. Instead, it relied on two DMCA anti-circumvention provisions.
One prohibits bypassing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. The other prohibits offering a technology or service mainly designed to bypass such a measure.
Google argued that some search pages contain protected material licensed from third parties, including images and content shown in Knowledge Panels. It claimed SerpApi accessed and resold this material without permission.
Google sought damages and an injunction stopping SerpApi from circumventing SearchGuard. It also requested destruction of the technology allegedly used for the circumvention.
Why the Judge Dismissed the Lawsuit
SerpApi asked the court to dismiss the complaint, arguing that publicly available search results were not protected copyrighted works. It also maintained that SearchGuard controlled access to Google’s service rather than to copyrighted expression.
Judge Rogers divided the ruling according to the material appearing on a search page. The court permanently dismissed Google’s claims involving results containing no copyrighted component. The judge explained that the DMCA provisions apply when a technological measure protects access to a work covered by copyright. An anti-bot barrier does not receive that protection merely because it restricts automated access to factual or unprotected information.
The ruling was different for pages containing licensed copyrighted material, such as certain Knowledge Panel images. The court found that Google had not adequately alleged that SearchGuard operated with the authority of the relevant copyright owners. These claims were dismissed with permission to amend.
SerpApi Did Not Win Every Argument
The judge rejected some of SerpApi’s broader positions. The court did not agree that Google automatically lacked standing because third parties owned the copyrighted material.
The court also found that Google alleged enough facts at this stage to support an inference that SerpApi circumvented SearchGuard. Therefore, the order did not declare all web scraping lawful or decide that SerpApi’s practices were legally protected.
The central weakness was Google’s failure to connect SearchGuard sufficiently to access control over identifiable copyrighted works.
What Happens Next?
Google received 21 days from the July 20 order to amend the claims involving search results with copyrighted components. Any new allegations cannot contradict the original complaint. The judge also stayed discovery until Google files an amended complaint and any resulting dismissal motion is resolved.
The decision matters to scraping companies, search-data providers and AI developers, but it is not a general licence to collect all publicly available information. Scraping disputes may also involve contracts, privacy requirements, computer-access laws or direct copyright claims.
For now, the Google anti-scraping technology lawsuit establishes a narrower principle: bypassing an anti-bot system does not by itself create liability under the DMCA. The claimant must show that the system effectively controls access to a copyright-protected work in the manner required by federal law.