I'm not a lawyer:

In the absence of a reporting mechanism for issues like this, I'd suggest at least a notice / message alongside results to indicate that they may not reflect the current state of official and amended records.

(I think you may be wise to take this issue fairly seriously; there's a risk of people considering the search engine to be an authority in itself -- which, to be fair, is already a risk for any search engine, but since this one is more domain-focused, it's possible that some users could overdevelop a sense that the results are accurate and complete)

This is stated in simple language on the terms page, which is linked at the top/middle of every page. You have to decide between putting the same text on every page vs. a high visibility place vs. a low visibility place. I opted for 2nd to make sure it's clear.

Do most people read and comprehend terms pages before using the information they discover from search engines? (I don't know)

Absolutely not. A vanishingly tiny percent ever click on the terms link.

Indeed, so the only good option would be to only search public records.

Everything else should not be searchable.

It’s good that this is listed in the terms, but this raises two concerns:

1) People don’t read terms. Should they? Yes. Do they? No.

2) This language is more like a disclaimer than a term of use. I would not assume that disclaimers about the accuracy of the result would be found in the terms.

So yes, the terms link is prominent, but no, I don’t think it addresses this issue.

Wouldn't it be easier for people to just individually sue not so much to achieve the end result but to shut down your operation under the costs incurred?

I tried you hn handle on Reddit it says user does not exist.

I'm curious as well. Reddit me at napoleongoldfinger if that's cool?

aoeusnth48