A federal judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit alleging an auto transport company used toxic backlinks to hurt a competitor’s Google rankings.
Catch up quick. The June 2 ruling came at the motion-to-dismiss stage:
- The court didn’t decide whether the allegations are true. Instead, it found the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged a false advertising claim under the federal Lanham Act, along with trademark and related Illinois consumer protection claims.
- The judge dismissed only the plaintiffs’ California unfair competition claims.
Alleged toxic backlink campaign. Montway’s verified complaint alleges competitor Nexus AT LLC created more than 2,350 toxic backlinks between April and October 2025. The links pointed to Montway’s website from spam-filled sites using anchor text such as “buy steroids online,” “Payday loan services,” “illegal betting sites,” “Cocaine powder online,” and “unlicensed firearms.”
- Montway alleges the campaign aimed to lower its Google rankings and falsely associate its brand with illegal or unsavory products and services.
- The complaint also alleges a former Nexus manager told Montway executives that Nexus CEO George Arkin directed an SEO contractor to carry out the campaign.
- Montway further alleges it sent a cease-and-desist letter in October 2025 and that the backlink campaign intensified afterward. Those allegations have not been proven in court.
False advertising claim survives. Judge Matthew Kennelly found that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the anchor text was literally false because it appeared to promise one destination but sent users elsewhere. He also found the alleged backlink campaign could qualify as “commercial advertising or promotion” under the Lanham Act. That allowed the false advertising claim to move forward.
Why this ruling is interesting. The decision focuses on whether an alleged toxic backlink campaign can fall under existing false advertising law. It doesn’t decide whether the defendants are liable.
- Rebecca Tushnet, a Harvard Law professor who writes about trademark law, analyzed the decision on her 43(B)log, questioning parts of the court’s trademark analysis while examining its approach to the false advertising claim.
Why we care. Companies that believe competitors are trying to manipulate their search visibility have traditionally had few options beyond reporting the activity to search engines. If this legal theory survives, it could provide another legal avenue to challenge SEO sabotage.
The case. You can read more about it on Court Listener.
