Google v. SerpApi: So Is SerpApi Legal or Not?

If you buy Google results from a SERP API, the useful question is what the cited orders actually decided and what your contract covers. I checked the retained court documents and vendor terms on 16 October 2026, rechecked both public dockets and the vendor terms on 6 November 2026, and checked again on 11 November 2026 after new orders landed in both cases. This is the legal companion to my search API guide.

So, are SERP APIs legal? #

The short answer: the records below give no blanket permission or prohibition for SERP APIs. In Google’s case, the 20 July order dismissed the first complaint, with leave to amend one portion. The 5 October order vacated the former 13 October hearing on the second dismissal motion. The court then decided that motion on the papers: its 9 November order dismissed both DMCA claims in the amended complaint, with 21 days for Google to amend. That is a pleading-stage ruling, not a finding that SerpApi’s conduct is lawful.

Reddit’s 31 July opinion sustained some DMCA and conspiracy claims against SerpApi and Perplexity at the pleading stage and dismissed others. Later discovery, briefing and counsel orders, including those of 9 and 10 November, do not establish liability or a later merits outcome.

Short on time?

What the documents actually support

Google

Amended complaint dismissed, with leave to amend

The July order dismissed the no-copyright-content theory without leave. The 9 November order held the amended copyrighted-content allegations still fell short and gave Google 21 days to amend; otherwise, the order says, dismissal with prejudice.

Reddit

Some claims sustained as pleaded

The July opinion sustained specified circumvention, trafficking and conspiracy claims. November orders give SerpApi an amend-or-stand choice on its counterclaims and record Perplexity's withdrawal of its counsel-appearance motion.

For buyers

Review the exact coverage

SerpApi and SearchApi publish conditional collection cover. Eligibility, jurisdiction, exclusions and downstream use matter; a cap is not blanket immunity.

Prices verified 11 Nov 2026. Primary documents and current terms reviewed 16 Oct 2026; docket feeds, new November orders and terms rechecked 11 Nov 2026. No complete PACER review, account test or later-outcome certification.

Google v. SerpApi at a glance #

Fact	Google v. SerpApi	Reddit v. SerpApi et al.
Court / case	N.D. Cal., 4:25-cv-10826-YGR	S.D.N.Y., 1:25-cv-08736-PAE
Judge on cited orders	Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers	Paul A. Engelmayer
Defendants in cited pleadings	SerpApi LLC	SerpApi, Oxylabs UAB, AWMProxy, Perplexity AI
July document	ECF 42, July 20: dismissal with different amendment rights	ECF 104, July 31: some claims sustained, others dismissed
October document	ECF 60 hearing vacatur; ECF 61 party notice	ECF 161 limited discovery stay; ECF 170 reply-page allocation; ECF 180/182 testimony set on the counsel-appearance motion
November document	ECF 62, Nov 9: both DMCA claims in the amended complaint dismissed, 21 days to amend	ECF 183, Nov 9: SerpApi to amend or stand on its counterclaims; ECF 185/186, Nov 10: Perplexity's counsel-appearance motion withdrawn and terminated

Source: Google ECF 42/45/60/61/62 and Reddit ECF 104/161/170/180/182/183/185/186; public docket feeds checked 11 Nov 2026. Document dates are not a certification of the full current docket. Scroll sideways for more columns.

Timeline: Google v. SerpApi and Reddit v. SerpApi #

Date	Document	What it establishes
2025-12-19	Google filing date recited in ECF 42 p.4	Google brought its two-count DMCA action
2026-07-20	Google ECF 42	First complaint dismissed; copyrighted-component theory could be amended
2026-07-31	Reddit ECF 104	Claim-specific pleading rulings against SerpApi/Perplexity
2026-08-10	Google ECF 45	Google filed an amended complaint; allegations are not findings
2026-10-01	Reddit ECF 161	Limited stay of discovery unique to antitrust counterclaims
2026-10-05	Google ECF 60	Former October 13 hearing vacated; reset or written decision possible
2026-10-12	Google ECF 61	Party notice of another case’s decision, not a ruling here
2026-10-13	Reddit ECF 170	Combined twenty reply pages could be reallocated; stated replies due October 16
2026-10-16	Reddit ECF 171, 172 (docket entries)	Perplexity and Proskauer filed replies supporting the counsel-appearance motion
2026-10-28	Reddit ECF 180	Court will hear closed-courtroom testimony from three lawyers before resolving that pending motion
2026-10-29	Reddit ECF 182	Testimony set for November 5 and November 9, 2026; no ruling on the motion
2026-11-09	Google ECF 62	SerpApi's motion to dismiss the amended complaint granted without oral argument; 21 days to amend, or dismissal with prejudice
2026-11-09	Reddit ECF 183	SerpApi must amend its counterclaims or stand on its opposition to Reddit's motion to dismiss them by November 23
2026-11-10	Reddit ECF 185, 186	Perplexity withdrew its motion to have Proskauer appear; the court asked Keker, Van Nest & Peters, which had moved to withdraw as Perplexity's counsel, to say by November 13 whether it maintains that motion

Source: Retained court documents reread 16 Oct 2026; Reddit ECF 180/182 checked 6 Nov 2026; Google ECF 62, Reddit ECF 183/185/186 and both public docket feeds checked 11 Nov 2026. A filing date, scheduling order or notice is not a later merits disposition. Scroll sideways for more columns.

Is SerpApi illegal? #

The cited orders do not declare SerpApi or every SERP API categorically illegal. What Google alleges comes first below; what the courts decided follows in the next sections.

Google’s amended complaint, paragraphs 27–45, alleges circumvention of SearchGuard, a measure it says controls access to copyrighted content in its search results. It alleges authorization from licensing partners and other sources. These are Google’s allegations, not independently proved facts about SerpApi’s systems.

The complaint seeks damages, including an alternative statutory claim of $200–$2,500 per violation, and injunctive relief (paragraph 49 and prayer). Those are requested remedies, not an award or an issued injunction. I did not establish a later injunction from the reviewed record.

So did Google win? #

Not so far. SerpApi has now won two motions to dismiss, but none of the cited documents is a final judgment or a merits ruling. The July 2026 order, pages 11, 14 and 20, separates two theories:

• No copyrighted content: dismissal without leave to amend, for claims premised on SearchGuard controlling results with no copyrighted content.
• A copyrighted component: dismissal with leave to amend, because Google had not plausibly alleged copyright-owner authorization for implementing SearchGuard.

The order also rejected several additional grounds SerpApi advanced for dismissal, including its circumvention argument (pages 15–18). It did not hold that every form of public-web scraping is permitted. Its treatment of hiQ and Van Buren explains why CFAA cases do not decide the DMCA questions here (pages 12, 16–17).

That procedural result should not be reduced to either party’s victory headline. A pleading ruling and a final liability judgment answer different questions.

What changed in Google’s amended complaint? #

The August complaint, paragraphs 30–33, adds claimed authorization from licensing relationships, Reddit and Google’s privacy-policy arrangements. It retains the two DMCA counts, under §1201(a)(1)(A) and §1201(a)(2).

What did the November order decide? #

I read the full 9 November order (ECF 62). Chief Judge Gonzalez Rogers decided SerpApi’s motion without oral argument (page 1, footnote 1) and granted it with leave to amend. She took each claimed source of authorization in turn, accepting Google’s allegations as true for this stage:

• Reddit content (pages 7–11): Google did not allege facts showing the licensed Reddit content was creative enough to be copyrighted, or that it appeared in the search results SerpApi allegedly scraped. Reddit’s alleged request to Google was enough to infer authorization for Reddit’s own content, but not for content owned by Reddit users.
• “Prominent licensing partner” (pages 11–14): the agreement allegations were too bare to show authorization to block automated scraping. The court rejected SerpApi’s arguments that Google had to attach the agreement and that a copyright “holder” is not an “owner”.
• “Major content provider” (pages 14–16): no allegation that the content was copyrighted, that it appeared in the scraped results, that the agreement authorized such a measure, or that the provider owned the copyrights.
• Google Privacy Policy (pages 16–18): no allegation that the content was copyrighted or in the scraped results, and the policy itself contains no terms about licensed content.
• Other content, such as lyrics and images (pages 18–19): no facts showing that the copyright owners authorized SearchGuard for that content.

The order does not decide whether SerpApi circumvented SearchGuard, does not find SerpApi’s service lawful and does not mention robots.txt. On page 19, Google may file a further amended complaint within 21 days “to the extent that it may do so without contradicting the allegations in the AC”. A failure to do so “will result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice.” If Google amends, the response is due 21 days later, SerpApi may not raise new arguments it could have raised earlier, and discovery stays paused. By my count the 21 days run to 30 November 2026; check the docket for the operative date.

I do not summarize Google’s opposition or SerpApi’s reply beyond how ECF 62 describes them. The order cites the Ted Entertainment decision only as a comparison case. A party’s characterization is not the court’s ruling.

What about Reddit’s case? #

In Reddit v. SerpApi, Oxylabs, AWMProxy and Perplexity, the July opinion concerns SerpApi’s and Perplexity’s dismissal motions. It accepts pleaded facts for that stage; it does not establish those allegations as trial findings.

On pages 34, 37 and 40, the court found the complaint plausibly alleged protected snippets and an effective access-control measure. Its gate analogy is explicitly about SearchGuard as pleaded. Page 43 distinguishes the pleaded Reddit–Google authorization facts from Google’s first complaint.

The claim-by-claim conclusion on page 62 is precise:

• Sustained: §1201(a)(1)(A) against both moving defendants; §1201(a)(2) against SerpApi; New York civil conspiracy against both.
• Dismissed: §1201(b) against SerpApi, plus unjust enrichment and unfair competition against both.

This does not resolve Oxylabs’ motion, AWMProxy’s status or later counterclaims. Perplexity is described as a SerpApi customer in the assumed allegations on page 3; that is a reason to examine customer risk, not a finding against every customer.

The 1 October order stayed only discovery unique to SerpApi’s antitrust counterclaims while Reddit’s dismissal motion was resolved. It did not dismiss those counterclaims.

The 13 October order allowed redistribution of twenty combined reply pages on the counsel-appearance motion; its attached request states a 16 October reply deadline. It did not decide counsel appearance or the merits.

Perplexity and Proskauer filed those replies on 16 October (docket entries 171 and 172).

After reviewing materials it had ordered Proskauer and Perplexity to submit, the court said in its 28 October order that testimony from two Proskauer lawyers and one Reddit lawyer would help it resolve the pending motion, and closed the courtroom for that testimony because it would cover privileged communications. The 29 October order set it for 5 and 9 November 2026. Neither order decides the motion or any claim.

On 10 November, Perplexity filed a notice withdrawing that motion, stating it will not otherwise seek to be represented by Proskauer in the case; the judge endorsed it and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion (ECF 185). The court’s 10 November order (ECF 186) then asked Keker, Van Nest & Peters, which had moved in September to withdraw as Perplexity’s counsel, to say by 13 November whether it maintains that motion; if so, Perplexity may respond by 20 November. It states that all deadlines in the case remain as set. Nothing in these orders addresses the DMCA claims.

Separately, the 9 November order (ECF 183) deals with Reddit’s 25 September motion to dismiss SerpApi’s counterclaims. Because the court had not issued its usual amend-or-oppose notice, it gave SerpApi the choice again: file amended counterclaims or a letter standing on its existing opposition by 23 November. (The signed order prints the year as “2206”; the surrounding dates show 2026 is meant.) If SerpApi amends, Reddit has until 14 December to answer, move again or rely on its earlier motion; if SerpApi stands, Reddit’s reply is due 7 December. The order decides nothing about whether the counterclaims survive.

Is scraping Google legal? #

There is no one-line answer: Google’s terms, the DMCA and CFAA, and robots.txt each address a different question.

Google’s general terms restrict automated access contrary to machine-readable instructions. Its spam policy separately addresses unpermitted automated queries. These are provider rules, not a universal court holding on every collection or use.

DMCA §1201 addresses specified circumvention and trafficking conduct involving protected works and effective measures. The CFAA concerns different access offenses and elements. Neither a vendor subscription nor a publicly visible page supplies an automatic legal safe harbor.

For robots.txt specifically, my guide to whether robots.txt is legally binding goes deeper, and RFC 9309 distinguishes crawler instructions from access authorization and security. Google’s November dismissal order does not mention robots.txt; it turns on copyright protection and copyright-owner authorization under §1201. Law, contracts, personal data and downstream copying remain separate questions. Google’s official search products have their own scope and conditions.

Which SERP APIs offer legal cover? #

SerpApi and SearchApi publish conditional cover for their own collection/parsing. I have not established that those contracts cover a particular customer claim. The table compares published language, not insurance certificates or court-tested entitlements.

Vendor	Eligible service / cap	Scope and limits
SerpApi	Recurring plans other than Free/Starter/Developer; Production currently $150/month; up to $2M	Lawful collection; US-law claims in US courts; downstream use/illegal uses excluded
SearchApi	Active paid Production+; $2M aggregate per twelve months	Solely vendor collection/parsing; downstream use/storage/redistribution excluded; discretionary defense and notice/cooperation conditions
apiserpent.com (SerpentAPI)	No provider scraping indemnity verified	Customer indemnity; AS IS service; liability limited to amounts paid in the prior twelve months, subject to law

Source: Current SerpApi legal/pricing, SearchApi terms and apiserpent terms, reread 11 Nov 2026. No blanket survey of every vendor’s contract or account entitlement is claimed. Scroll sideways for more columns.

SerpApi’s U.S. Legal Shield #

The current legal clause, §13, excludes Free, Starter and Developer. The pricing page places Production at $150/month. Cover is up to $2M for lawful public-search collection, limited to US-law claims in US courts; the customer’s later use is outside that scope.

The exclusion list includes illegal uses such as DMCA violations. I did not find an authoritative public interpretation establishing how that exclusion would apply to a specific §1201 customer claim. Ask for the applicable written terms rather than treating a screenshot or the cap as a guarantee.

SearchApi’s Legal Protection #

The current terms limit cover to active paid Production+ collection/parsing claims under US law and jurisdiction. They cap covered amounts at $2M aggregate per twelve months, reserve discretion over defense/settlement/payment, and require notice, cooperation and defense-control conditions.

Use, storage, redistribution, commercialization, third-party contracts, claims tied to your own systems and other exclusions matter. A claim arriving after subscription termination is outside the stated period. I did not establish a per-customer allocation of the aggregate cap.

apiserpent.com (SerpentAPI): no legal cover #

Its terms provide AS IS/AS AVAILABLE service, cap stated liability at amounts paid in the preceding twelve months and require customer indemnity. Indian law and arbitration in India apply. The terms restrict scraping/copying/storage contrary to third-party terms; no provider scraping indemnity was verified.

That allocation does not prove how its collection works or whether any particular use is permitted. Its documented lower unit prices can matter to a cost-sensitive buyer, but should be considered with prepaid cash, output and account limits in the cheapest SERP API comparison.

What does this mean if you buy SERP data? #

For SERP API customers, the lawsuits are a reason to examine customer risk and contract scope, not a finding against every customer. I would review five things before choosing a provider:

1. Eligible plan and period: what cover survives cancellation, if anything?
2. Exact conduct: collection, customer instructions, copying, storage and redistribution are different scopes.
3. Exclusions: obtain written clarification for the proposed use and possible DMCA claim.
4. Defense and cap: confirm who controls a claim, notice/cooperation requirements, applicable courts and how the limit is allocated.
5. Continuity: assess service change, backup and refund terms if an injunction or provider restriction occurs.

The cited amended complaint asks for an injunction; a prayer for relief is not an issued order. I do not infer customer liability or immunity from these pleadings. Google’s 2026 move to /goto result links is a separate data-quality question, covered in Google’s goto links and poisoned SERPs. See SerpApi alternatives with legal cover for a broader comparison, SerpApi pricing for which plans include the Legal Shield and Serper vs SerpApi for the two-provider choice.

What happens next? #

In the SerpApi lawsuits, the next substantive checks are whether Google files a further amended complaint within the 21 days ECF 62 allows (and any new dismissal motion if it does), SerpApi’s 23 November election on its counterclaims, the Keker firm’s 13 November filing on withdrawal, and later Reddit counterclaim/Oxylabs outcomes. Check both dockets before relying on this. Neither ECF 61’s party notice nor the Reddit scheduling orders establish a winner or settlement, and ECF 62 is not a final judgment.

On 11 November 2026 the public Google docket feed listed ECF 62 (9 November) as its newest entry. The Reddit docket feed ran to ECF 186, with minute entries for 6 and 9 November that I treat as index metadata, not rulings. Those are mirror feeds; I do not equate absence of a newer entry with absence of a PACER filing or ruling.

Item	Google v. SerpApi	Reddit v. SerpApi et al.
Case number	4:25-cv-10826-YGR	1:25-cv-08736-PAE
Status	Active; amended complaint dismissed with leave to amend	Active
Last event	ECF 62 (9 November) granted SerpApi's motion to dismiss both DMCA claims in the amended complaint, decided on the papers after ECF 60 (5 October) vacated the 13 October hearing. Dismissal is with leave to amend, only to cure the deficiencies the order identifies. Discovery remains stayed. (2026-11-09)	ECF 186 (10 November) recorded that Perplexity withdrew its motion to have Proskauer appear (terminated by the endorsed notice at ECF 185) and set a 13 November deadline for Keker, Van Nest & Peters to say whether it maintains its motion to withdraw. ECF 183 (9 November) gave SerpApi an amend-or-stand election on Reddit's motion to dismiss its counterclaims. ECF 161 (1 October) separately stayed discovery unique to those counterclaims. (2026-11-10)
Next event	Google may file a further amended complaint within 21 days of 9 November (30 November by my count); the order says failure to do so will result in dismissal with prejudice. Any response is due 21 days after an amendment. No newer entry appeared in the public feed on 11 November 2026.	Keker's filing due 13 November; Perplexity's response, if needed, by 20 November. SerpApi's counterclaim election due 23 November; Reddit then responds by 14 December if SerpApi amends, or replies by 7 December if it stands. Conflicting future conference dates from index metadata are withheld pending the actual scheduling order.

Scroll sideways for more columns.

The methodology explains the source boundaries; the editorial policy covers corrections.

FAQ

Is SerpApi illegal?

The cited orders do not declare SerpApi or every SERP API categorically illegal. Google’s first complaint was dismissed partly with leave to amend, and on 9 November 2026 its amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend; Reddit’s July order sustained some claims at the pleading stage. None of these is a trial finding of liability or of legality. Later outcomes require a complete current docket review.

Are SERP APIs legal?

That depends on access, controls, contracts, content, reuse and jurisdiction. These cases address particular DMCA allegations. A public page, a robots rule or a vendor subscription alone does not decide the legal question.

Is it legal for my company to use a SERP API?

I cannot give blanket permission. Reddit’s July order sustained a circumvention claim against Perplexity, described as a SerpApi customer in the pleaded facts. Vendor collection cover has exclusions and does not generally cover downstream data use.

Can I trust SerpApi while the lawsuits are pending?

Its published prices and contract can be checked, but they do not prove service quality or resolve litigation. I make no rating, tested reliability or current review-count claim. Read the applicable contract and assess your own use.

Did Google win its lawsuit against SerpApi?

Not so far. The July 20 order dismissed the first complaint with different amendment rights for different theories. Google amended. On November 9, 2026 the court granted SerpApi’s second motion to dismiss both DMCA claims, with 21 days for Google to amend; the order says that if Google does not, the action will be dismissed with prejudice. That is a pleading-stage ruling, not a merits finding, and the case is not over while the amendment window is open. On 11 November 2026 the public docket feed listed no later entry, though RECAP can lag PACER.

Is SerpApi a free Google tool?

SerpApi is independent of Google. Its current pricing page lists 250 monthly free searches. That free plan is excluded from its Legal Shield.

Will I get money from a Google settlement?

No settlement fund or payment entitlement is established by the records reviewed here. Do not infer one from this article or from an unrelated Google settlement.

Sources

24 sources, accessed 16 Oct 2026 to 11 Nov 2026.

Official pricing, docs, changelogs and status pages 7

1. Current primary legal, policy or contract source apiserpent.com · accessed 11 Nov 2026
2. Current primary legal, policy or contract source developers.google.com · accessed 6 Nov 2026
3. Current primary legal, policy or contract source policies.google.com · accessed 6 Nov 2026
4. Current primary legal, policy or contract source serpapi.com · accessed 11 Nov 2026
5. Current primary legal, policy or contract source serpapi.com · accessed 11 Nov 2026
6. Current primary legal, policy or contract source rfc-editor.org · accessed 6 Nov 2026
7. Current primary legal, policy or contract source searchapi.io · accessed 11 Nov 2026

Other sources 17

1. Google ECF61: party notice, not an order storage.courtlistener.com · accessed 6 Nov 2026
2. G42: actual court document storage.courtlistener.com · accessed 16 Oct 2026
3. G45: actual court document storage.courtlistener.com · accessed 16 Oct 2026
4. G60: actual court document storage.courtlistener.com · accessed 6 Nov 2026
5. G62: order granting motion to dismiss amended complaint with leave to amend storage.courtlistener.com · accessed 11 Nov 2026
6. R104: actual court document storage.courtlistener.com · accessed 16 Oct 2026
7. R161: actual court document storage.courtlistener.com · accessed 16 Oct 2026
8. R170: actual court document storage.courtlistener.com · accessed 16 Oct 2026
9. R180: actual court document storage.courtlistener.com · accessed 6 Nov 2026
10. R182: actual court document storage.courtlistener.com · accessed 6 Nov 2026
11. R183: amend-or-stand order on SerpApi counterclaims storage.courtlistener.com · accessed 11 Nov 2026
12. R185: Perplexity notice withdrawing Proskauer motion, so ordered storage.courtlistener.com · accessed 11 Nov 2026
13. R186: order on the pending motion to withdraw storage.courtlistener.com · accessed 11 Nov 2026
14. Reddit v SerpApi public RECAP docket feed courtlistener.com · accessed 11 Nov 2026
15. Google v SerpApi public RECAP docket feed courtlistener.com · accessed 11 Nov 2026
16. Current primary legal, policy or contract source law.cornell.edu · accessed 16 Oct 2026
17. Current primary legal, policy or contract source law.cornell.edu · accessed 16 Oct 2026