Slashdot Mirror
Google Sued Over Click Fraud
tanveer1979 writes "A seller of online marketing tools has sued Google over click fraud, accusing it of failing to protect clients from spurious clicks over web ads. The suit claims damages of $5 million and is seeking class action status. Sites get money per click from the advertisers. Rival companies of the advertiser may employ people to repeatedly click on the advertisers link on Google costing them large amount of money. Google denied the allegations. From the article: 'We believe the suit is without merit and we will defend ourselves against it vigorously.'" Interesting turnaround.
Google sues people for click inflating, for the sake of their customers.
Google's customer sues Google for not doing enough.
Since Google now has pretty deep pockets, you can expect an endless stream of all kinds of wierd-ass lawsuits filed against them.
wasn't there an article a while ago about how google was trying to stop this since they were losing a ton of money to fake clicks? i think every online advertising company in the world has been working on this problem for a long time. suing them won't fix the problem but it will get all those lawyers a lot of money.
They don't have to sued Google over this, but the people commiting click fraud... I mean, they sign a contract in which they agree to pay for each click, it's never mentionned that Google will ensure that all clicks are legits... I don't think they have the slightest chance to make a point in court. Now Google could prrobably provide protection, but they won't have to. Eventually, protection (unique clicks, time spent on site etc) will arise with competition on ad placement as a required service.
\u262D = \u5350
Not really. Google sued people who were artificially inflating their clicks. Now, someone is saying Google does nothing about click inflation. Who knows the specific of this individual case, but clearly Google has done *something* about click inflation.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Does anyone know how does google check for "fake" clicks?
Alexan
Cytopia - Psytrance Music downloads
Otoh, this'll be even worse for google if Click defense manages to score a win in the courts.
Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
In other news, Sears is being sued for failing to conduct background checks on the purchasers of air conditioners. It seems foreign assassins have been dropping them out of windows and killing unsuspecting Americans.
Failing to prevent? I mean, come on. This only makes sense if Google signed a contract with the advertisers saying they would implement measures to prevent this.
I have two eyes, I have two feet.
I hope this company doesn't have a 1-800 number:
"Ma' Bell didn't tell all the callers that they could only dial our number if they were going to buy something".
.\.\att Clare
Im just trying to think what google could do beyond some of the obvious - Ignoring multiple clicks from same IP on same ad target.
Any system is going to involve an element of fraud if there are human beings involved.
ok, so based on the second link to the previous slashdot story (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1 927212&tid=123),
doesn't that prove in Google's favor that Google *is* taking click fraud seriously? Thus, doesn't that conclusively demonstrate in Google's favor that "Click Defense Inc." is just wrong?
And their main product is to prevent, you guessed it, Click Fraud. Hmmmm, a few minutes ago I didn't know that such a product existed, but now that they've sued google, I do. double hmmmm hmmmm.
Some Executive somewhere: "Google is getting sued because they don't protect us from 'Click Fraud', whatever that is! that could cost us lots of money! What can I do to protect myself? Let me ask Google. Oh, look who is on the sponsored links, clickdefense.com. Oh, their product saves me! yay!"
I smell a large omnivorous rodent of the genus Rattus...
multifariam.net -- yet another nerd blog
Follow the money. Google has the most money, therefore they are the best target to go for.
IMO
This is a publicity stunt.
Click Defense is suing Google to get people to think about click fraud, so they'll buy software from Click Defense to save themselves.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Google's Click Fraud System!
In my humble opinion, any lawsuit that has the words "failing to protect" in its description is automatically bunk.
--- witty signature
I change my advertising methods. If you bought a full page in the New York Times for advertisement and didn't see an increase in business that coincided with the amount you spent (assume that a rival company with deep pockets purchased about 100,000 subscriptions to the Times to inflate the ad placement cost), you would change your ad placement strategy. This is no different. If you want to sue someone, you need to sue the end-clicker that is causing the inflated ad cost or find another marketing plan.
.sigs cause cancer!
google does not employ any click patterns analysis, and fraud you have to both expect, plan, pay for, and fight against; mostly by yourself.
I had a one week adwords saga. The bottom line was that if fraud exists, and the claim is right they do react, but one has to act on it, not wait for the PPC carrier to discover it.
Then since this core flaw exists, great media-opportunist companies appear and sue google in order to gain media exposure. this kind of news should become no news soon enough!
cut this signatures madness. stop reading them now!
Perhaps they should read Google's TOS that prevents their liability for damages of any kind. Plus, if a company pays people to click their ads, they're the one committing the fraud and the only losers are the company itself and the IRS.
The company is a loser because they paid money for an ad that no one but their own people see. They could have saved money by not purchasing the ad to begin with. The IRS loses taxes because the company is providing service to Google, and then from Google to itself, meaning about half of the transaction taxes evaporate.
I'm not convinced Google is trying as hard as it should to combat click fraud, and I know how awful their customer service is, but...
When you sign up for AdSense or AdWords, you do agree to their terms of service, including things like (paraphrasing here):
Seriously, Google ads have some great advantages on both sides, but if you go down that path you should not bet more money than you can easily afford to lose. You've basically agreed up front that they're always right - and yeah, maybe you can challenge that in court, but don't forget they have twenty lawyers for every click-fraud investigator. :-)
This Like That - fun with words!
I'm far more concerned about Fake Chicks that come up using Google Image search. Maybe we should sue.
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
with my Visa CapitalOne Check Card. It's in my wallet.
If the customer is already benefitting from reduced rates to compensate for a known issue, I don't see how a court could fairly award the complaintant.
If googles customers want to pursue this, they will just force advertising rates higher, screwing no one but themselves. Especially, since google is under no onus of having to provide the same rates to all customers. They can impliment a "variable fee" for the perceived threat of potential litigation from their customers, on a per customer basis.
Irregardless of "fairness", this is justifiable.
If banks can get away with it on loans, by "examining the history and circumstances" of businesses and individuals they do business with, then so can google.
-iNToIT
This seems like a rather obvious case of extortion if you ask me. I can picture the "negotiations" now.
Click Defense: Buy our software
Google: No thanks, we're good
Click Defense: Buy it or we'll file a lawsuit and make lots of public statements saying you are allowing your customers to be ripped off (reminding them that people beleive anything they read on the IntArweb)
Google: Pack Sand
Click Defense: You'll regret this, it'll now cost you 10x as much as our shitty software
Why don't we hold companies and individuals criminally resposible for this kinds of abuse of the legal system?
Google is charging them for all the fake clicks they got. That's why they're complaining.
I am trolling
I've been a vicitim of click fraud more than once. Sometimes, Google sees it and sends me a credit. (And by that I mean I did not notice it or report it -- they told me; that was early on in my advertising days, however.)
I have not had an automatic credit like that in a very long time, but my logs are indicative of click fraud. You can write to Google and get a credit, but, for some ad campaigns, it's just not worth it -- well over 90% of the clicks can be fraudulent. The time invested to keep getting credits may out weigh the value of the campaign. YMMV.
Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
But they didn't seem to want to rock the boat of their solution.
I once asked them, if I click 5 times on an ad, does that get charged 5 times? They said they couldn't say. All they have to do is stop charging someone for the same IP in the same day lets say.
Sure, they would loose 15-20% (guesstimate) of clicks right? But wouldn't the service be better value therefore people would spend more?
Thats all folks.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
" Google is charging them for all the fake clicks they got. That's why they're complaining." No, I understand that... but how do they expect to win money over this? It isn't Google's fault.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
Now that Google is public, I believe that Click Fraud will continue to increase. Think about it for a second:
...
1. Buy Google stock.
2. Perform random searches on Google.
3. Click every ad.
4. Google makes $$$ for those clicks.
5. Stock price goes to $300, $400,
6. Profit!
It's hard to imaging any other company in which you can invest and, with so little effort, produce revenue for them. Hell, you could be doing something else at the same time! I bet while watching "Dancing with the Stars" you could flow several grand into Google's bank account. If even a small percentage of Google shareholders do the same, it's just like printing money.
Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
...they dropped Schlock Mercenary from AdSense, they say, because of invalid clicks. Whether they're doing enough or not is, of course, open to dispute, but they do monitor clickthroughs.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
First, since this company isn't an actual customer my guess is that their suit will be thrown out for lack of standing.
However, there is a valid issue here. I would guess that Google is responsible for two things. 1 Notifying customers when they detected a non-trivial amount of fraud. 2 To make a good faith effort to combat this fraud.
Failure to perform either of these could open up Google to some amount of liability.
Click for google search link for 'Click Fraud' then click all the click fraud companies google ads - lets see how long it takes to wear out their daily budgets!
DO IT, DO IT NOW!
PS: Has this ever worked on slashdot?
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Counting clicks as a means of collecting revenue is a flawed business model. It sounds and seems more "precise" somehow, but as it has been pointed out, various forms of employment has actually arisen in low-income countries where people just come in and click away for cash. It's insane and more importantly, easily exploitable.
Other advertising media use demographic polls to determine the approximate number of eyes and ears on their material. This is a fair means by which the value of advertising can be measured. It means the media will have to pay a reliable source to collect this information and all that but it's not as exploitable as hiring clickers in the 3rd world country to run up the advertising costs of a competitor.
There's still room for fraud and falsification but the target for such accusation is much easier to define and because of this, they [the poll people] are more likely to protect themselves with auditing and tracking measures should they be accused of, say, siding with Yahoo! or Google when reporting numbers. It would more or less absolve the advertiser and the medium from this problem and actually simplifies the business model considerably.
The internet advertisers should take a lesson from the rest of the world and simply go with what works. People will cheat every chance they get. It's clear and obvious. So you just have to find ways to reduce that risk.
Have you guys read the site? These guys are a bunch of ass clowns.
l
http://www.clickdefense.com/terms_of_services.htm
"RISK. YOUR ACCOUNT AND THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED TO YOU ON AN "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS. Click Defense, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ITS DISTRIBUTORS, ADVERTISERS AND SUPPLIERS, DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARISING BY LAW OR OTHERWISE, WITH RESPECT TO YOUR ACCOUNT AND THE SERVICE (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT)."
First, you can't disclaim expressed warranties. Also kind of hypocritical that they disclaim all responsibility for their product and turns around and sue Googles for what amounts to a warranty issue.
Very unprofessional. Obviously a bunch of dumbasses.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Welcome to the new economy, run by lawyers, to benefit lawyers.
The lawyers win either way...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So how did you know it was really click-fraud?
multilple requests from the same IP could be fraud, or it could be a couple of people behind a NAT looking at the same page it's also possible you site had some weird-assed IE only shit that didn't render properly in mozilla or even some pathetic ASP page on a windows server kept timing out and people kept trying to reload the corrupted page. What might it be? If your adveritsing in a magazine, you'll have to assume the the advert you've paid for will only be looked at by a small percentage, and mail campain only get a 1% responce rate if it's very exceptional, spam probably gets a thousandth of that. If you advertised in a magazine, and inserted blow-in business reply cards is everytime the post office delivers one that's blank fraud or just a cost of doing business? Not every click is going to be a well-qualified, motivated potential purchaser; but some are going to bookmark you site and compare prices else where, maybe they'll come back, maybe they will not. What would happen if google sued you because a potential customer bookmarked your site after following an advert depriving them of revenue when they returned?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
First, you have to understand how Google runs your ads. You set a daily budget, and once that budget is exceeded, your ad stops. You get a new daily budget a 'midnight' (adjusted for locality, of course).
So, there are times when, right at midnight, there is a sudden and dramatic rise in the number of queries which would produce my ad, and my CTR goes to 100%. They all come from the a block of IP addresses owned by one of my competitors. Sometimes they come somewhat more scattered in the IP address space, but a few whois searches reveals that all of the offending IPs are related (through business ventures, or have the same registered mailing address, etc.)
They click the ad until my daily budget is drained, and then my ad stops for the day.
Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
I answered this question here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154418&cid=129 50336 .
I agree with your analysis, but, if you read my other posting, I think you'll see that I have evidence of real click fraud.
Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
I was terminated from their service for clicking on ads on my page. I didn't have any kind of bot set up, I just clicked on interesting ads. I even bought some things via those ads. Then I get this:
"It has come to our attention that invalid clicks have been generated on
the ads on your web pages. We have therefore disabled your Google
AdSense account. Please understand that this step was taken in an
effort to protect the interest of the AdWords advertisers.
A publisher's site may not have invalid clicks on any ad(s), including
but not limited to clicks generated by a publisher on his own web
pages, clicks generated through the use of robots, automated clicking
tools, or any other deceptive software.
Practices such as these are in violation of the Google AdSense Terms
and Conditions and program polices, which can be viewed at"
I guess I didn't read the fine print well enough. I didn't realize that I was *completely* forbid from clicking on ads on my own page. I think the problem was that my site isn't terrifically high-traffic, so I was probably one of just a few people actually clicking.
Instant Karma's gonna get you...
Most of my customers use Google Adwords and Yahoo Search Marketing. Adwords generates about 20x the click throughs, and costs more than triple that of Yahoo Search Marketing.
However, the ROI through Yahoo is consistently better. My clients are dropping Google left and right, and I strongly feel that this is due to the nature of adsense.
Ads provided by Google on affiliate websites are typically text based and appear to be designed to trick customers into clicking the ads, thinking they are part of the site they are currently on, and then the surfer just hits the back button because they never intended to leave the site they were on anyway.
My proof of this is in the stats. When someone comes to one of my customers' websites from Yahoo, their typical page views are 2-4 pages. When they come from Google, the page views are typically 1 (or just the homepage).
I don't feel that it is a click fraud issue for some of these smaller companies using adwords, rather it is Google banking on surfer error through the adsense program.
I would like to see the Google Adsense program more clearly render their ads on other websites so people know that they are actually clicking on ads. Yes, I know there is a tiny Google mark on the ads, but when is the last time you saw a surfer read everything on a web page?
Only victims make excuses