Have you ever heard of a Wisconsin woman named Beverly Stayart? Unless you follow semi-obscure legal cases or live in Elkhorn, Wisconsin, the answer is probably no.

Stayart is a middle-aged woman who describes herself on her Tumblr page as the “CFO and Director of Business Development for Stayart Law Offices.” For years now, her name has popped up alongside listings for drugs such as Cialis and links to websites hosting malware in search results on various search engines (including Alta Vista, Yahoo, and even AdultFriendFinder) as an apparent result of search engine optimization algorithms and auto-complete. As a result, she’s pursued lawsuits against these companies, arguing that they have violated her right to privacy by misappropriating her name and serving up ads or auto-suggesting search terms around her name.

So far she’s lost at every turn. Her latest case is against Google, and it argues that her name has been misappropriated because searching for "Bev Stayart" on the search engine brings up "Bev Stayart Levitra" in Google's auto-suggest algorithm. (Levitra is an erectile dysfunction drug.)

On Wednesday, however, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed her yet another loss in her lawsuit against Google, upholding a decision made by a district court in 2011. In the appellate case, Stayart argued that her rights under Wisconsin’s right to privacy laws had been violated under §995.50(2)(b).

“The use, for advertising purposes or for purposes of trade, of the name, portrait or picture of any living person, without having first obtained the written consent of the person or, if the person is a minor, of his or her parent or guardian” constitutes an invasion of privacy, the law states.

But the Court disagreed.

"Stayart has not articulated a set of facts that can plausibly lead to relief under Wisconsin's misappropriation laws,” the court wrote (PDF).

In fact, the court cited her own previous case against Yahoo, in which that court found that there had to be a “substantial rather than an incidental connection between the use and the defendant’s commercial purpose.”

Stayart did not respond immediately to our request for comment.

Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, wrote about Stayart’s case back in 2011, saying:

The court couches the discussion in fairly turgid legal prose, but the message is clear: Bev Stayart's claims substantially overread the law, and she hasn't suffered any damage the court is going to recognize. Most plaintiffs would get the hint and cut their losses. Among other consequences of her litigation campaign, Bev Stayart's litigation campaign has irrevocably changed the search results on her name. Instead of associating her with sexual dysfunction drugs, her search results forevermore will be associated with unmeritorious litigation. Thus, I still fail to understand why these lawsuits aren't fundamentally counterproductive to her apparent goal of improving her online reputation.

UPDATE 6:35pm: Stayart called Ars back, and said that she vehemently disagrees with the decision, and is considering appealing the case to the United States Supreme Court, as well as other suits. However, she noted that her counsel (also, her husband) will make those decisions.

"I feel that the decision was economically-driven, in favor of Google and against the rights of the individual," she told Ars, adding that the court seemed to only be representing the interests of the "1 percent."