SerpApi Challenges Google Over SERP Scraping

SerpApi, a provider of search engine results APIs, has filed a motion in a US federal court seeking the dismissal of Google’s DMCA lawsuit. The move challenges whether Google has the legal right to bring a copyright-based claim over search results that display content from third parties. At the heart of the case is the question of whether platforms like Google can invoke the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to prevent automated access to publicly available web pages.

The legal dispute stems from Google’s allegations that SerpApi bypassed its technical safeguards, known as SearchGuard, to scrape search results pages (SERPs). Google claims this unauthorised access has led to operational costs and potential revenue losses. However, SerpApi rejects these claims and argues that Google is overstepping the boundaries of copyright law.

Standing to Sue

SerpApi’s core argument is that Google does not own the content displayed in its search results. Many pages include images, business listings, product photos, or other information generated by third parties. According to SerpApi, the DMCA is designed to protect copyright holders—the original creators—not platforms that merely organise or present that content. This means, SerpApi argues, Google lacks the legal standing to file a copyright lawsuit in this context.

SerpApi CEO Julien Khaleghy stated:

“Google is a website operator. It is not the copyright holder of the information it surfaces.”

The motion cites a precedent from the Supreme Court case Lexmark International v. Static Control Components, which emphasises that a plaintiff must demonstrate injuries within the “zone of interests” the law is intended to protect. SerpApi contends that Google’s claimed harms—higher infrastructure costs or potential ad revenue loss—do not meet this standard.

Circumvention Claims

In addition to challenging Google’s standing, SerpApi disputes whether it actually circumvented any technological measures. Google alleges that SerpApi bypassed JavaScript challenges, rotated IP addresses, and mimicked human browsing to access SERPs. SerpApi counters that these techniques do not constitute circumvention under the DMCA, since the pages accessed were publicly visible and no encryption, authentication, or access control measures were disabled.

SerpApi describes SearchGuard as a bot-management tool rather than a copyright-protection mechanism. This distinction is important because under the DMCA, anti-circumvention provisions only apply to technological measures that prevent access to copyrighted works.

Implications for the Industry

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for web scraping, data analytics, and automated access to publicly available content. If Google succeeds, it could potentially use copyright law to block third-party tools from collecting data from search results and other platforms, even when the content itself belongs to publishers or creators. This might affect SEO tools, analytics platforms, and other services that rely on automated access to publicly visible information.

Conversely, a ruling in favour of SerpApi would reinforce the idea that publicly accessible content can be collected and analysed, provided no technical security measures are illegally bypassed. This would offer greater freedom for independent data services, market research platforms, and tools that provide insights into online trends.

Legal experts note that the case also tests the boundaries of platform control and copyright enforcement in the digital age. It may shape how companies design their anti-bot systems and the strategies they use to protect content without overreaching under copyright law.

Timeline and Next Steps

The court hearing for SerpApi’s motion to dismiss is scheduled for May 2026. Google is expected to file a formal response before then. Observers across the tech and SEO industries are watching closely, as the ruling could establish a key precedent in determining whether large platforms can claim copyright over publicly available content to restrict automated access.

In the meantime, the case highlights the tension between the rights of content creators, platform operators, and third-party service providers. As automated data collection becomes increasingly vital for businesses and research, the balance struck in this case could influence the future of web scraping, platform policies, and digital copyright enforcement.