Where These Disputes Usually Originate
Many SEO disputes are, at their core, ordinary contract disputes wearing technical clothing. The client believed it was paying for a defined scope of work and a reasonable expectation of results; the agency believed it delivered what the contract described. Resolving these matters requires someone who can read both the contract and the actual technical work product, and explain where they diverge.
These cases are rarely resolved by the contract language alone, because SEO statements of work are often written in general terms that both sides can plausibly interpret in their own favor. The technical record of what was actually delivered — content published, links built, changes made to the site — is usually what ends up deciding the matter.
What These Cases Typically Involve
Undefined Scope
Vague deliverables ("ongoing SEO services") without measurable benchmarks, leaving both sides to argue after the fact about what was promised.
Reporting Disputes
Reports that show favorable metrics (impressions, low-value keyword rankings) while omitting the metrics that actually matter to the client's business.
Termination Disputes
Disagreements over whether early termination was justified by poor performance or was itself a breach.
Ownership Disputes
Questions about who owns content, accounts, and access credentials after the relationship ends.
Bill's role in these matters is generally to serve as a technical guide to the underlying work product, helping counsel and the court understand what was actually delivered, whether it reflects standard industry practice, and how it lines up against the contract language both sides are relying on.
In many of these disputes, the strongest evidence is not the contract itself but the dated record of work actually performed — content published, links built, and changes made to the site — which either supports or undercuts each side's account of what happened.