The client appears to be arguing that due diligence was obstructed by the defendant’s claims of ‘trade secret’ and must, therefore, bear the responsibility.

I don’t have any special access here, all this information was in the statement by the plaintiffs … in the article above. The suit argues that the defendants actively violated Google’s guidelines as were effective at the time of service rendered, and knew that they were violating the guidelines, and that, furthermore, that rather than disclose that they were doing so, objected to disclosure on the basis that their methods were trade secret.

IANAL and the validity of the claims has yet to be established by the court, but the suit, as quoted above disambiguates a claim against results from their suit. They’re not suing because RAINMAKER didn’t deliver.

They’re suing because RAINMAKER was metaphorically hired to fix their paint job, and knowingly and intentionally undermined the paint job on the entire car, and attempted to hide the fact that they had done so.

Notwithstanding the above, My point is that your comment is non sequitur. In fact, not guaranteeing results is what the defendant did, and it is not doing them any good, because, as the plaintiff argues, you can’t disclaim doing nothing or causing harm, and charge for doing something, or escape the consequences of doing harm.

And raise your prices of course…

Sorry, just responded to your original post. Did not get through the entire thread yet. ;-P

Yes. But that’s not really the point. Had I known the seos were breaching se guidelines and our agreement I would not have continued.

Did you get good positive results before Penguin?

Duplicate content penalty! But who shall we blame?