Aussies Sue Over Misleading Google Ads

eldavojohn writes "Google is the target of another lawsuit — this time over whether or not they are responsible for the content that advertisers put up on their site. The case involves an instance where Google displayed ads for two automotive dealerships in Australia, yet the links led users to the site of a commercial rival. The company that placed the ads in 2005 avoided a lawsuit by settling with Australian regulators, who are now going after Google for not policing the ads. If this suit holds up it will set a precedent for very heavy ad monitoring responsibility on the part of all search engines, not just Google."

Comments

Policy

[BaronGanut]

Or they just put a note that they are not responsible for it, and put it in the agreement with the advertiser that the advertiser is responsible.

Re:Policy

[Mistlefoot]

"Or they just put a note that they are not responsible for it, and put it in the agreement with the advertiser that the advertiser is responsible."

Clearly they shouldn't be.

If I purchase an ad in a newspaper would the newspaper be liable if I used a competitors name? Does the newspaper have to personaly verify every address and phone number to ensure I am using only my information?

What if I visit a printing company and have scam flyers printed up. Is it up to the printing company to verify?

Just because something happens on the internet doesn't mean it's different from any other media in regards to issues like this.

Re:Policy

[girltard]

If the newspaper is notified by Nike that you have been placing advertisements for fake Nike shoes in their newspaper for months, and they refuse to take down the advertising, then yes the newspaper is complicit.

Do you realize that over 70% of the keywords bought on Google and Yahoo and MSN are for copyrighted words?

Take away the ability to mislead web surfers and you've just pulled out one of the main financial pillars of the web 2.0 economy.

Re:Policy

[MontyApollo]

The newspaper would be held responsible if it contained porn...

There is usually an editorial policy in place. It has been awhile since I used Google Adwords, but I believe they did have a policy against using trademarked company names for example. They had an automated system that would scan for trademarked names, forbidden words ("online poker"), and that type stuff, then it had to undergo review by a real person.

A good question is if you were to complain, would Google respond or just blow you off.

I came across a fraudelant ad on Ebay several times over the years where somebody hijacked an account with good feedback and was trying to scam somebody into sending them money ($25K in one case), and everytime I reported this I got some form response back saying that the ad did not appear to violate their terms of service or something to that effect.

Re:Policy

[MontyApollo]

Oh, and I forgot to mention that Google adwords editorial people are supposed to visit the website linked to from the ad and ensure that it satisfies their editorial policy as well. Ads can get rejected if the linked to page does not have enough original content for example.

This goes back to if Google is allowing ads to link to competitors, is this condoned or do their editors suck?

Re:Policy

[greenbird]

Do you realize that over 70% of the keywords bought on Google and Yahoo and MSN are for copyrighted words?

Wait a minute. When did they start giving copyrights for individual words? That's gonna make writing ANYTHING kinda tricky. I get a picture in my head of a lawyers version of the "Knights of Nee". Can I get the copyright for "the"?.

Re:Policy

[aldousd666]

Right, after all, a newspaper isn't responsible for people who place misleading classified ads. Google is an advertising carrier, not an advertiser... just like in any advertising case, you don't sue channel 6 because the car dealership put an advert out with a bait and switch photograph on it... it's the person who actually makes the ad that's the culprit. I love how nobody in the world is ACTUALLY responsible for their own actions anymore.

Re:Policy

[boyko.at.netqos]

"If I purchase an ad in a newspaper would the newspaper be liable if I used a competitors name?"

Actually, yes. A publisher/editor is liable for all the content that appears in the newspaper. (I'm assuming of course, that you're using the competitor's name in a way that is injurious to reputation.)

"Does the newspaper have to personaly verify every address and phone number to ensure I am using only my information?"

Most good news papers have their fact checkers doing EXACTLY that. Again, a publisher/editor is liable for all the content that appears in the newspaper.

"What if I visit a printing company and have scam flyers printed up. Is it up to the printing company to verify?"

No, because unlike the newspaper, the printing company does not -distribute- the flyers. You could print scam stuff till you're blue in the face, you are just not allowed to distribute it.

-- Brian Boyko
-- Former Associate Editor, Daily Texan Newspaper, Austin, TX.
-- M.A. Journalism, University of Texas.

Re:Policy

[empaler]

Speaking as a Google Certified Adwords Professional, I'd say their editors truly suck. At least their danish ones. I've had nothing but problems on their part; last time I wrote to them about an error in their system*, their reply took a month. And was almost useless. Oooh, and had something along the lines of "We apologixe for the inconvenience. We are currently having trouble meeting our 24 hour service goal". GODSDAMNTHEM!
I'm so glad I've had most of my customers moved to a coworker so I can concentrate on my real work.

/empaler

*: If you've never had to work with the Adwords System, praise yourself lucky.

Re:Policy

[empaler]

(...)You could print scam stuff till you're blue in the face, you are just not allowed to distribute it.

-- Brian Boyko
-- Former Associate Editor, Daily Texan Newspaper, Austin, TX.
-- M.A. Journalism, University of Texas.

You sound like a trustworthy source, mister Boyko.
If that is your real name?

Re:Policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Google helps and assists in making the adds, channel 6 or a newspaper or whatever else you want to compare too is not relevant. In this situation channel 6 would be the equivalent of the web sites that have google adsense, Google puts the adds together and determines where they are going to be shown, They are an AD AGENCY, they are the producers and are therefore a first party and directly liable for misleading Ad's just as Ad Agencies for Television and newspapers can also be held liable.

Re:Policy

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you go back and RTFA? They did go after the advertisers. And got them to modify their behaviour.
Now they want Google, as the promoter of the dodgy adverts scheme, to modify their behaviour.

Re:Policy

[tpv]

I don't think it's that simple.

I agree, Google is involved in the generation and preparation of advertising material, and has taken on a great deal of legal responsibility by doing so. However I think your assumption that Channel 6 couldn't (or wouldn't) be chased by the ACCC is false.

It is my understanding that if a corporation distributed advertising that they knew, or should reasonably have known, was false, then they would be liable under section 52 of the TPA.

e.g. If you walked down the street handing out leaflets containing misleading or deceptive information, and you knew that to be the case, then you will have engaged in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.
Luckily you're not a corporation, so the legislation would not apply to you.

Alternatively if a business was paid to put an advertising poster in their window that they knew contained misleading information, then they could be held liable, even if

1. They didn't prepare the ad
2. The ad wasn't for their business

Section 52 of the TPA doesn't care about who produce the advertising or whose products the advertising was for. In fact it doesn't even mention the word advertising. A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. That can apply to a TV station, a newspaper, a billboard owner, or any website that is engaged in trade or commerce.

Re:Policy

[aggiefalcon01]

Not necessarily. Not every ad's target page (there are billions) will be visited by a Google employee. However, Google does have a crawler called Google Ads Bot that crawls every single target page, and then digests it, so that Google can determine if the page is a good match for the ad text & keywords or not. If it's not a good match - according to this algorithm - Google won't let the ad go through. But bear in mind that this kind of software-based figuring out if a page matches a keyword well enough is far different from verifying a Nike ad doesn't load up an anti-Nike page at Reebok. More info on Google Ads Bot.

Aussie Version of False Advertising

[no_pets]

Perhaps the company placing the ads of a rival should be sued for false advertising.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[russotto]

RTFS. The company placing the ads has already settled. This is just a case of going after the deep pockets.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[ZachMG]

Im gunna go with false advertising as well, not googles fualt

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

>Perhaps the company placing the ads of a rival should be sued for false advertising.

absolutely agree

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[UbuntuDupe]

Yeah, this is like suing a television network because a commercial "for" company X on their channel had a telephone number that actually rang their competitor Y.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[harves]

I don't understand the point behind your "deep pockets" reference. This isn't some upset businessman suing Google. This is the consumer-protection arm of the Australian Government. They don't keep the money. There is no benefit to any employees, or indeed to the government itself. The ACCC is doing only what it believes is its job.

I'm not arguing the ACCC is right. But they're certainly not after the money.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[Wookietim]

If this case is decided against Google, where does it end? Is an ISP responsible for any websites it hosts? How about any email that get's passed through it's servers? After all, I get at least 5 scam emails per week - I could get rich suing ISPs in no time! If that is true, are phone companies responsible for what people say on the phone? Are caterers responsible for bad movies they might have catered to?

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

The government isn't after money? What f-ing planet are you from? ALL governments want as much money as they can get. MONEY = POWER.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[corbettw]

I'm not arguing the ACCC is right. But they're certainly not after the money. No, but they are probably after the prestige. If they take down Google, it instantly elevates their visibility. At the very least, it gives pretty big bragging rights to the individuals at the ACCC who work on the case.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[kiracatgirl]

If they don't keep the money, then who are you saying does? It's not like it'll magically disappear.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

well testing nesting reply

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[polebridge]

But perhaps they retain "outside counsel" (Lawyers) who would benefit hugely, and be in a good position to hire the ACCC guys who sign the papers.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[harves]

I would love it if articles would link to the sites of the people involved.

See http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/ 792088/fromItemId/142

They are mainly seeking injuctions, declarations, and order. The only monetary request is for costs. You can argue that costs can be inflated, but this is still not a "fine them $x million" lawsuit that you see elsewhere in the world. The ACCC is looking for a change in behaviour from Google and, if proven right, money to cover the ACCC's expenses.

After reading that URL, I think you'll agree that the ACCC is in the wrong. But can we dispense with the "they're after the money" posts, please? The ACCC is requesting something similar to a newspaper retraction, not a fine. If someone finds information that they're seeking a fine, please post it.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[Frosty Piss]

This is just a case of going after the deep pockets.

This has nothing to do with "deep pockets", it has to do with being responsible for content on your web site. This is not the same as responsibility for things such as forum posts, it's not a question of "editorial rights" or similar speech issues. This is an issue of allowing clearly false and deceptive advertising. A company should not be able absolve itself of this type of responsibility.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[aldousd666]

That's called a "kickback" in the good old USA, and to some, it's a way of life. I don't want to be them if they get counter sued and lose...

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[Afecks]

There is no benefit to any employees, or indeed to the government itself.
Bullshit, if there's no benefit then why would they be doing it? Either you're saying they're crooked or they're stupid*. Which is?

(*or some other option which should be obvious but if I don't specify I will be accused of presenting a false dilemma)

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[kakofb]

Yeah maybe your corrupt-arse government. The ACCC is not a revenue-generating arm.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[kramulous]

Of your two options, I'd have to go with stupid. But the benefit is very clear. It is the Australian consumers that benefit. That laws are adhered to. The ACCC receive money from the Australian Government (read tax payer money) to make sure that companies stick to the rules. This way, large corporations don't get away with treating the consumers (or anybody/anything else) like crap by having pockets deep enough that they can 'win' by keeping the case in court for as long as it takes to bankrupt anyone bringing legal action. This tactic will not work with the ACCC.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[harves]

I'm guessing that courtroom judges are stupid or crooked then. I mean, surely there is no benefit to a courtroom judge in bringing down judgements, right? Except, perhaps, that it is their job to do so?

The ACCC is known to Australians as the "consumer watchdog". It has the task of standing up for consumer rights. It is responsible for taking companies to court when they breach trade regulations in Australia.

For example, I believe it is legal in Australia to mod your PlayStation, and probably your DVD player. This is because "market protection" mechanisms are not permitted. Sony claimed that they needed market protection to help manage copyright infringement. ACCC took them on, on behalf of Australian consumers, and argued that "market protection" and "copyright protection" are different things. It was Sony's fault for linking the two things within the same chip, and so modchip-ing your PlayStation is legal.

(smart idea to allow for another option, by the way)

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[kiracatgirl]

Well, thank you for answering my question, although the implication that I was one of the "they're after the money" posts was a bit unnecessary. I really was wondering where the aforementioned money would go. :P

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[harves]

You're right. I was too harsh. Yours just seemed the best response, so I chose to reply to it.

Apologies,
Peter.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

From your link:

The ACCC is seeking... declarations that Google contravened section 52 of the Act

From the Trade Practices Act 1974 Section 52:

A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

It's the law here. Google's conduct (running fraudulent advertising) is misleading. They're breaking the law, the ACCC is doing what it's chartered to do. Like the law or not, it's there.

IANAL

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[harves]

Yeah, I read it. Section 52 is surprisingly brief.

The question I have is this: is Google being deceptive as part of trade or commerce? You can argue they are being deceptive toward us, the users of their search engine, but does our usage of their search engine count as trade or commerce? It could be argued that this section of the TPA does not apply.

On the other hand, the advertisements are being presented on *behalf* of another person, and are paid for. Therefore, at the time of presenting the advertisements to us, Google is performing a commercial act. By targeting (remember, they select advertisements that are appropriate to our search!) these deceptive advertisements at us, are they therefore involved in deceptive conduct as part of a commercial transaction?

Perhaps this is what the ACCC is claiming. Perhaps they will claim that *if* Google is going to selectively target advertisements at users, then they have an obligation to ensure those advertisements are not deceptive. I have no idea. But both sides are arguable.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[NoMaster]

The ACCC is known to Australians as the "consumer watchdog".

Yes, in much the same way as our PM is known as "Honest John" or redheaded guys are called "Bluey"...

Fact of the matter is, whilst they occasionally throw out nice little bones to the general public like PS2 mods & region-free DVD players, they're just as much a political arm of the government as any other. Witness the inevitable - and toothless - investigations into petrol pricing, etc, that seem to crop up with depressing regularity every 3 years or so, co-incidentally just prior to Federal elections.

Take a look at the history of ACCC enquiries, the number (surprisingly few) which were found to have breached the laws, and the number (even fewer) which were upheld on appeal to the government or the courts. Then, of the ones left, look at who they were against and what they were for - 90% are for trivial breaches of the various acts which resulted in almost no effect on consumers, The only other big important ones which come to mind were against transport companies and box manufacturers for price collusion - both of which have since been largely negated by market changes (i.e. one player buys out the other).

And this isn't a knock against the current government either, as much as I hate them - the same shit went on in all the previous incarnations of the ACCC under previous governments of both stripes. It's largely a toothless tiger which occasionally gets given a free set of badly-fitting dentures on Medicare and told to put on a show...

Having said all that, this is just dumb. Is the complaint that Google continued to run the ads (sorry, "sponsored links") after the advertiser was stopped? If that's the case, then isn't it the responsibility of the advertiser to inform the magazine/newspaper/website to stop?

Or is it the argument that Google is responsible for the validity and content of all ads it runs on behalf of 3rd parties? If so, there's going to be a hell of a lot of scared media and advertising companies very soon, and a bunch of trade practices lawyers rubbing their hands at the thought of all the jobs they'll soon have in those companies.

(Yes, I know the article seems to indicate it's the first option. I've seen it reported the other way elsewhere.)

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[rtb61]

No the real target is, low entry point cheap marketing is no excuse for not monitoring the quality of your marketing promotions.

Google greatly increases it's profit margin by not spending any where enough money upon ensuring the quality of their adds or the companies they are promoting or the products they are promoting adhere to requirements of mi minimum marketing standards.

SO they are tackling the largest and as a result most abusive of fair marketing principles, in cheap entry level marketing companies. As for the ACCC being visible in Australia, just ask the Banks, Oil Companies, Phone Companies, Internet Companies etc., they are very visible in Australia http://www.accc.gov.au/ and are not to be compared with near indivisible for profit versions in other countries.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[bWareiWare.co.uk]

I think that getting Google to do their job for them, would probably count as a 'benefit'.

Not to mention a certain deep pocketed organization may pay their new consumer-protection officers more then the government.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[Rip!ey]

They are being pursued over the matter. The claim in the linked article that the advertiser reached settlement with the regulators appears to be a fabrication. I can find no reference to back this up.

The ACCC news release found at http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/ 792088/fromItemId/2332, dated 12th July 2007, includes the advertiser as party to current proceedings.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

[tpv]

is Google being deceptive as part of trade or commerce?

I'd argue that "misleading" is the more applicable word than deceptive, but that's just semantics really.

does our usage of their search engine count as trade or commerce

Yes. It's similar to free to air TV (*), or open-air billboards.
They have a valuable commodity (your attention) and are trading it to advertisers for cold hard cash.
It's clear that your page view has value, because Google is selling it. (**)
So a trade takes place - you give a page view, and Google gives you search results.

If a billboard owner knowingly allowed their billboard to be used to display misleading or deceptive ads, then I would expect to see the ACCC attempt to make a case against both the advertiser and the billboard owner.

Furthermore, in this case as you mention, Google is selling keywords and targeting the ads. That moves them far beyond just being the medium by which the advertising takes place, and puts them squarely in the business of generating and preparing ads.

(*) Technically TV is a more directly controlled and regulated medium, partly due to the scarcity of the resource (the frequency spectrum) and mostly for historical reasons, so the actions of the ACCC in that space tend to be handled differently.

(**) Well technically, they're selling clicks, not views, but I doubt that'll change very much if it gets to court.

everyone wnats a buck

[Anonymous Coward]

now everyones wants to steal off of google.

Oh come on...

[The13thSin]

I mean, I'm not one to say "oh the poor multibillion dollar company", but this is bordering on ridiculous: Is Google really that evil or are the 5 or so lawsuits I've been hearing about in just 2 weeks against them maybe a bit much?

Stupid lawsuits?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in America! Err...wait.

Re:Stupid lawsuits?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shh. You'll upset the world view of people who like to criticize the US' world view.

Re:Stupid lawsuits?

[VJ42]

Only in America! Err...wait. Dumb convicts*, don't even know which part of the world they're in...
not that the Yanks* are much better, at least the frogs* have reedeming features within a train ride or or even driving distance. to be pompous and patronising to the face of the rest of you guys costs a small fortune, and takes hours on a long haul flight. ;p


*note, I'm English, therefore I have a licence to call the Aussies convicts, Americans Yanks and generally insult the French. In return they get to call me a Pom, Limey or generally insult me. when these activities are performed by other nationalities (including, but not limited to the Welsh, Scots, Germans or Americans) it's trolling. From us English, it's friendly rivalry and banter.
This licence is irrevocable and non-transferable.

Re:Stupid lawsuits?

[Dumbsaint]

One frivolous lawsuit vs how many have we seen from the US? Actually the legal system in Australia is very good and not rife with this sort of thing. (We also don't tape our legal proceedings and then peddle them on television to make cash, ala Judge Judy. huh.)

Re:Stupid lawsuits?

[SultanCemil]

Bloody whingeing Pom.

Re:Stupid lawsuits?

[Anonymous Coward]

ashes
5 fricken nil

nuff said.

Re:Stupid lawsuits?

[spun]

Okay pommy, does pom mean Prisoner of Her/His Majesty, Prisoner of Mother England, short for pomegranate, or rhyming slang for tommy?

s/wnats/wants

[CheeseburgerBrown]

s/steal off/steal from

* This corrections service is offered as a courtesy by Cheeseburger Brown, author, clown and smart-ass. *

Re:s/wnats/wants

[GeckoX]

'Now everyones wants to steal from of google' you say?

If you're going to be a smart ass, at least be smart about it. Otherwise, well, you're just being an ass ;)

Messenger not responsible for the Message

[prakslash]

I am not a Google fanboi but this lawsuit is BS. Google cannot police the content of the ads. It is just a medium - akin to a billboard or a newspaper.

How many times have we seen informercials on TV and the web promising extraordinary "male enhancement"? My wife keeps pointing me to them all the time (I guess she is telling me something).

Anyways, they never work. They are all bogus but I have never been able to bring lawsuits against the TV stations or the websites.

I can sue the advertiser not the medium.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[BUL2294]

You firmly believe that you could never bring a lawsuit against a TV station for something that was advertised on it? IANAL, but such an action (falsely advertising one company then redirecting to another) is illegal. If they were totally not liable (at least in the US), then TV stations could accept ads from drug dealers, prostitutes, bookies, chop-shops, cock fighters, doctors who loosely write prescriptions, Chinese toothpaste manufacturers, etc.

Yet, for some reason, they don't ... So there's some level of verification and corporate responsibility (and CYA) going on. In this instance, Google has shown no such actions.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[catbutt]

Well if it were up to me, there *should* be a certain responsibility on the part of the tv station (as well as Google).

I don't think they should have to police the ads per se, but if they know that the ad is deceptive (such as if someone brings it to their attention), they should refuse to air it/show it, and be held accountable.

True, the main responsible party is the advertiser, but I don't think that entirely lets google or the tv station off the hook.

More generally....it's not all black and white.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[ch-chuck]

well, puffery in advertising is perfectly legal

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[klingens]

They don't cause the products and services you list are illegal. Cars are not illegal (yet).
Google doesn't advertise cocaine either.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[D-Cypell]

How many times have we seen informercials on TV and the web promising extraordinary "male enhancement"?

I would not recommend these products at all!

As someone who has battled with literacy problems my entire life I thought this was exactly what I was looking for! However, I bought a tonne of these pills and I still cannot read my male... plus, for some strange reason, I now have difficulty putting my trousers on in the morning!

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, leaving aside the fact that many advertising providers do contribute to the content, Google absolutely can police their content.

It's insane to say Google has no responsibility, because this is a case of them taking money to provide a specific service. As such, they're responsible for it. This would include misleading advertising. If they don't want to screen them, tough nuggies, they should.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Khammurabi]

If the court finds that Google is required to police the content in advertisements, it would open up the door for a whole slew of liability lawsuits against Google. It's quite likely they would strongly consider pulling out of that market altogether, as the cost to combat the lawyers that would come running would likely be quite large.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work for MS adCenter, and police ads is what we did all day. Using a competitors name, trademark, etc. in an ad, or as a keyword was grounds to have the ad rejected (and that's the most exciting part of the job, rejecting ads).

If MS can do this, Google can do this.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[tubapro12]

If they advertised for those the cops might like that television station, doing half their job for them...

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Anonymous Coward]

Newspapers are responsible for the ads they run if they want to get paid. And trust me, when two competing automotive advertisers get in a tiff over ad space, it ruins everybody's day. At the newspaper where I worked we actually had something similar happen --> two phone numbers got inadvertantly switched in the ad copy, so if you called one car lot you got another. Heavy man, really. Nobody got sued, but a lot of people at the paper took the heat, because, yeah, newspapers are responsible for the things they publish. And if Google charges for it than they are too.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[greenbird]

You firmly believe that you could never bring a lawsuit against a TV station for something that was advertised on it? IANAL, but such an action (falsely advertising one company then redirecting to another) is illegal. If they were totally not liable (at least in the US), then TV stations could accept ads from drug dealers, prostitutes, bookies, chop-shops, cock fighters, doctors who loosely write prescriptions, Chinese toothpaste manufacturers, etc. Yet, for some reason, they don't ...

"I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through." I think it may possible be because persons placing such adds may have a limited ability to pay for the adds since their stupid asses would likely be working in the prison laundry for a dollar a day shortly after the add came out.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Goaway]

They would pull out of the market that is making them all their money? Yeah, I can see that happening.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Anonymous Coward]

So they took heat for not publishing what they were paid to publish?

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a Google fanboi but

You know the saying: "acts like a duck, quacks like a duck..." Fact is, you are a Google Fanboi. Go back to your Google masturbation.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Dragonslicer]

They would pull out of the market that is making them all their money? If that market stops making them money, or starts costing them money, why wouldn't they?

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[pjt33]

You're right. It had never occurred to me, but I thought I'd check because I've seen some pretty weird eBay sponsored links in Google results.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[rkanodia]

Buy used eigenvectors on eBay!

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Kalriath]

Because it's making them virtually all of their money. Without advertising, Google would be bankrupted very quickly.

It wont happen.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, as well as harming the customer's business in the process by providing free advertising for their competitor. Needless to say credits were written.

People don't always realize that media companies only exist because of advertisers -- it's NOT the other way around. Google's not an exception. Neither is Yahoo. Or Myspace. Or Youtube. The internet's still really, really young. It only hit the mainstream in '95, and that's been what -- twelve years? In the meantime there's been a truckload of venture capital thrown its way. Now it's starting to completely replace the more "traditional" mediums. It may actually destroy newspapers completely. But as time goes on it has to start playing more and more by the same old rules. And that means advertising. It's either that or pay a subscription fee for every single thing we do online. But that money's gotta come form somewhere. /rant

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Hyperspite]

How much? My supply ran out while I was working on this phyiscs problem....

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Mundocani]

That's brilliant! It makes perfect sense -- because a TV station which airs one ad at a time and charges thousands of dollars for each ad is able to actually monitor their content, then anybody displaying ads should be able to police them! Who cares if they display millions of ads and only charge a few dollars for each one, they're serving it up so they should have hordes of people verifying every ad before it's allowed to go live. Google should've called Australia and talked to both car dealers to ensure that they had some sort of co-marketing agreement. If they don't care about some piddly-ass local car dealer ad then what do they care about?

While we're at it, how about hitting up the phone company for allowing harassing phone calls to go through and force them to monitor every call for us? Grocery stores should be responsible for testing every box of every product too -- I don't see why they should be off the hook for food poisoning just because they didn't test each bag of Veggie Plops before selling them.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Dragonslicer]

So they can either go bankrupt without their advertising program, or they can go bankrupt with their advertising program not making them enough money to pay their army of lawyers to deal with a never-ending flood of lawsuits. I guess I don't see the advantage of one situation over the other.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Anonymous Coward]

Ad, dammit, ad. It's an advertisement, not an addvertisement. The post you responded to spelt it correctly, ffs. </rant>

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy Steve Irwin Death on eBay!

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Goaway]

They're not gonna go bankrupt from having to hire a bunch of people to check through their ads before running them, man.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Anonymous Coward]

the puffery in advertising being reasonable is great, up until you meet the drooling fools who actually believe the puff! I understand that there are a number of products that now have disclaimers on them that you would think were common sense ( 'superman' childrens costumes with labels stating 'this product does not enable flight' )

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[greenbird]

Ad, dammit, ad. It's an advertisement, not an addvertisement. The post you responded to spelt it correctly, ffs.

A very justified rant. When I reread it I felt like posting the same rant. Man, that was annoying. I have no idea where that brain fart came from.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[tpv]

Who cares if they display millions of ads and only charge a few dollars for each one, they're serving it up so they should have hordes of people verifying every ad before it's allowed to go live

I'm sure Google will make a very similar argument if this goes to court, but the fact of the matter is, Google's business model is under their own control. They could, in theory, choose to charge thousands of dollars for each ad, and the TV station could charge a few dollars. (Neither company would make money in that situation, but that is a simple fact of life. Not every business model is profitable, or legal)

The courts do tend to at least listen to arguments based on the economic conditions - the test of what is "reasonable" for a company to do, does depend on how much money is changing hands - but it's not an overly persuasive argument. Clearly a pharmaceutical company cannot say "Oh, we only sell our pain relieving drugs for a few dollars, so we can't afford to perform safety tests".

At the very least Google will have to show that they took reasonable steps to ensure that the ads they displayed were legal. As I mentioned above, "reasonable" does depend somewhat on economics, but because they're trying to shirk a significant responsibility they will need to, at the very least, show that they looked into all the possible options for controlling this, and none of them were feasible. If the court decides that (for example) an extra $10 per ad (i.e. per ad submission, not per impression) would have allowed Google to do basic checking, then it will be pretty clear that Google didn't take all reasonable steps. It won't really matter if Google claims that the $10 would have sent them bankrupt. It's their problem to make the business work (legally) or get out. The law does not have to bend to accommodate every possible business plan.

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

[Mundocani]

Those are good points, but I guess I still feel that it's closer to the retailer end of your Aspirin analogy than the pharmaceutical end -- a manufacturer may only sell each bottle for a dollar or so, but they sell so many and they only have to test their product in batches in order to reasonably assure safety.

For Google selling ads that even a mom-and-pop car dealer can afford to buy there's just no way they can reasonably screen those ads without charging a significant fee (much more than $10 imo) to cover the costs of the phone calls, research, training, benefits, employees, salaries, etc. for those people hired just to do ad verification.

I wish that problems like this didn't happen, but the reality is that they do and that the laws seem to put the burden on the victim to take action against the perpetrator (and largely for good reason) instead of expecting some greater entity to stop it from ever happening in the first place. I realize that when it's practical the "system" can and does expect broad prevention, but I don't believe it's practical in this case for Google to do what they're asking.

I was wondering about that

[MontyApollo]

Just yesterday my wife was referred by a friend to a particular carpet cleaner, and when she searched for it online she got several ads with that company's name but they took her to different sites.

I was wondering if it would do any good to complain to Google or whether this is considered fair business practice. I thought of even letting the carpet cleaning company know what was happening, but since they did not even seem to have a website to begin with I doubt they would have even known what I was talking about.

Re:I was wondering about that

[GreyPoopon]

Just yesterday my wife was referred by a friend to a particular carpet cleaner, and when she searched for it online she got several ads with that company's name but they took her to different sites.

I would think this would be trademark infringement or something like that. Shame on the Australian regulators for settling.

Re:I was wondering about that

[davecb]

I believe it's making a false representation, both to the reader and to the newspaper, magazine or web hosting company.

If it's an attempt to obtain money by a false and fraudulent representation, though, then things get stickier: that's a criminal offence in Canada, and I suspect in Australia too.

American Heritage Dictionary: fraud (frôd) n.
1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

--dave

Re:I was wondering about that

[luke_francis2000]

The piece of law that they are sueing under is a thing called the Trade Practices Act 1974. Section 52 is a very broad section of that act that prohibits Misleading and Deceptive conduct.

If you read the press release on the ACCC website , they are also sueing the Trading Post, which traditionally was a paper you could buy advertising items for sale. As a guess, they are looking to clean up the online advertising business to discourage behaviour that would lead to people being mislead into buying from the wrong company.

Just a bit of background for the American readers. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is part of the Australian Federal Government. They normally deal with cases of large scale misbehaviour by companies (the smaller disputes between an individual and a company normally fall to the state fair trading body). Their resposibility is to ensure that the companies are providing their products to the customers in a reasonable way. Areas they look at include, price collusion, third line forcing, misleading and deceptive advertising (includes descriptions, prices and availability), anti-competitive behaviour, product saftety, etc.

Their normal preference is to obtain a court enforceable undertaking from the company in question, that will often include, changes in behaviour, corrective advertising and recompense to the customers affected. A good example of this is the case against Repco . In that case the results was that Repco agreed to a court enforcable undertaking to:

1. Advertise to admit they did not have enough stock for the sale in question
2. Recompense the people that complained with like goods or a gift voucher
3. Undertake a monitored program to ensure they complied with the Trade Practices act.

Note there was no financial benefit from this to the ACCC, the only recpompense went to the customers affected.

In some cases, the ACCC will take an organisation all the way through the system, and ask that the result be a fine, like in the case of Safeway, where they sucessfully fined the company $8.9 Million for price fixing, and one of the staff received a fine of $50,000. From memory all of the fines are per offence, and have provisions against the employees/officers of a company to help discourage bad behaviour. As you can see to take that kind of action takes a long time (in the Safeway case, it was 10 years because it went all the way through the court system).

Really?

[TubeSteak]

If this suit holds up it will set a precedent for very heavy ad monitoring responsibility on the part of all search engines, not just Google."

Only in Australia... Right?

Not that it isn't a good idea for all countries to pursue, but Australia's actions don't automatically effect the rest of the world

Re:Really?

[Minwee]

No, Australia did not effect the rest of the world. That was done long ago.

However their actions can affect any online entity which does business in Australia, and that includes Google.

Re:Really?

[wilymage]

At least in Australia we are taught the difference between the words 'effect' and 'affect,' you tards.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's amazing. You came _this_ close to the point but still managed to miss it.

Mislead

[halcyon1234]

The Aussies are just pissed off because they didn't read the advertiser's fine print that stated "Results not typical. Not all users will experience the same gain in length or width. Some users may not notice any change at all."

Re:Mislead

[Anonymous FTP]

If only I could say that. Mine actually shrinked!

Tiresome

[GnarlyDoug]

I'm getting very tired of hearing about groups not just going after responsible parties, but anybody connected, even in secondary ways, to the activities. Whenever you see that kind of behavior, you know there are ulterior motives behind it. This behavior can be more damaging to society than the original fraud. It results in massive burdens on companies, deep regulations, intricate and gameable legal systems, higher prices, barriers to entry for new companies, and finally corruption and and power through selective enforcement.

If a society is interested in remaining healthy and prosperous, groups going after innocent parties like this need to be outright censored (if private) or disbanded (if governmental) or completely overhauled with the top people fired. They are actively doing more harm than good and should be treated like the social cancers they are.

Re:Tiresome

[db32]

"I would like to solve this problem for less than the cost of a bullet" seems to apply here more than anywhere else it has been used.

Re:Tiresome

[telso]

The overly-litigious society can also cause burdens on individuals. Just over a year ago, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Childs v. Desormeaux that a host who serves alcohol at a party at their house is not responsible if someone drinks too much before coming to the party, doesn't drink at the party, and drives home and injures someone or destroys something. (A lot of people were saying the woman suing the family who held the party only did so because the guy who paralysed her had no money.)

Contributory infringement really goes too far in some cases, and a major problem is that unlike this case, when the average person could see that allowing the suing to go forward could personally affect them, when it's against a company, especially an "evil" company, people tend to feel it's just fine because the company deserves it, or is "faceless", or can afford it anyway.

Re:Tiresome

[Goaway]

I'm getting very tired of hearing about groups not just going after responsible parties, but anybody connected, even in secondary ways, to the activities.

The company distributing the advertisements are only connected to them in "secondary ways" now?

Re:Tiresome

[jrumney]

I'm not sure that holding an advertising company responsible for the content of ads they display is any different than holding someone responsible for receiving stolen goods. If we let it go on unpunished, then it provides a conduit for unscrupulous traders who may have other ways of evading the law themselves.

Re:Tiresome

[Nefarious Wheel]

You have to kind of understand our ACCC. They're good, very good consumer advocates -- but they also contain professional paranoids of the shoe-banging sort (I've actually seen one of their execs banging a shoe in a high-level committee meeting -- it wasn't pretty, but it was wildly entertaining -- fortunately an adjoining office caught fire and we all had to adjourn via the fire escape.).

Erk. I just imagined Kruschev wrapped in an Australian flag. I think I'll go have my hypothalectomy now...

bait and switch

[spyrochaete]

I had a similar experience recently. I was looking for a utility to restore an accidentally deleted file so I searched Google for "windows freeware undelete". The first result displayed was an AdWords listing entitled "Windows Undelete Freeware". I clicked it and looked all over the site but the company offered only paid undelete services.

I emailed the company and told them I found this misleading and they were very nice about it, saying they did not want to be accused of bait-and-switch and would contact their marketing department about this. I don't expect all companies to be so honest.

Re:bait and switch

[flyingfsck]

FreeDOS has undelete built in.

Re:bait and switch

[Orange Crush]

The first result displayed was an AdWords listing entitled "Windows Undelete Freeware". I clicked it and looked all over the site but the company offered only paid undelete services.

It's against Google's rules to advertise a "free" product or service then bring customers to a landing page with no actual free offers. Of course, it's not very well enforced.

But more than that, it's stupid. They're paying for every click and attracting people who aren't actually interested in buying anything. The whole point of targeted PPC advertising is to attract people who are actually looking to buy your stuff./p.

Re:bait and switch

[spyrochaete]

It's against Google's rules to advertise a "free" product or service then bring customers to a landing page with no actual free offers. Of course, it's not very well enforced.

Actually, Google told me that they do not take responsibility for the veracity of AdWords ads. Here's their exact words:

Thank you for your email. The AdWords program provides a venue for companies to advertise their services. We value customer service and hope our advertisers will provide quality care to our users. However, we are not responsible for nor are we able to monitor the actions of each company.

They then asked me for some specific information, saying that they would investigate the matter as a courtesy. They also suggested I contact the Better Business Bureau. I'm fairly pleased with the way they handled this, but a little frustrated that they don't follow up with ads because fraudulent claims make Google's services less trustworthy.

Re:bait and switch

[Astadar]

True they have to pay for the click, but it's entirely likely that after hitting several of these free-but-not-free offerings a user will resign themselves to having to pay for the software/service and become a customer.

You can pay for a lot of clicks with even one $20 sale.

Re:bait and switch

[DerekLyons]

I emailed the company and told them I found this misleading and they were very nice about it, saying they did not want to be accused of bait-and-switch and would contact their marketing department about this. I don't expect all companies to be so honest.

Um... They gave you a meaningless but 'sincere' apology. They weren't being honest, they were telling you what you wanted to hear so you'd get the hell off of the phone and taking up time that could be used on a paying customer.

Re:bait and switch

[ucla74]

Interestingly, I just replicated this "test." I typed "free undelete utility" into my Google search box in Firefox. The first result (shaded, and clearly marked as a "sponsored link" was pctools.com, for their trialware product "File Recovery." However, the trial version, as plainly indicated on the resulting page http://www.pctools.com/file-recover/?ref=google_fr &gclid=CMu0-tmMo40CFQlQWAodI1nZ6g does NOT recover deleted files.

Re:bait and switch

[spyrochaete]

I probably should have mentioned that I default to google.ca and the adwords ad I saw (which was indeed visibly shaded) directed me to a Canadian company.

Re:bait and switch

[ArsenneLupin]

True they have to pay for the click, but it's entirely likely that after hitting several of these free-but-not-free offerings a user will resign themselves to having to pay for the software/service and become a customer. But do you really want resigned / frustrated users as customers? A sizable portion of these will "buy" the free-but-not-free offering, but then turn around and contest the charge on the credit card, on the grounds that the ad said free (and in case of doubt, the Cc company always sides with customer...), thus turning that free-but-not-free offering into a free-but-not-free-but-again-free offering.

You can pay for a lot of clicks with even one $20 sale. But then, it doesn't take many contested charges (and associated fines...) to sink an otherwise profitable scam.

Re:bait and switch

[Astadar]

I absolutely agree, nobody wants frustrated customers.

My point, however, was that given a slew of search hits which say "free" in the ad, but turn out not to be free, one might come to the conclusion that they need to pay for the kind of product for which they are looking. Thereby being not thrilled that they had to pay for it, but thinking that the only way to come by such a product is for a nominal fee.

As long as the product actually works the way I want it to work, it's unlikely that I'll be a disgruntled customer and contest the charge.

This may be a good thing...

[gorehog]

This could be good if it means web sites and advertising suppliers become responsible for the veracity of their advertisers. Most advertisers already function as a type of censor, not willing to represent viewpoints in opposition to the status quo (for instance when was the last time you saw a TV or banner ad advocating marijuana legalization, paper trails at voting machines, or encouraging people to go out and protest at the local park?) Instead of making moral judgements maybe they could make factual ones instead.

I'm a yank and dont know about Aus law. maybe I'm assuming free speech that does not exist there. It shouldnt be a big deal to ask people to evrify the facts before they represent someone.

PS-if you're found guilty of a crime in Australia do they ship you off ot the UK?

Re:This may be a good thing...

[totally bogus dude]

PS-if you're found guilty of a crime in Australia do they ship you off to the UK?

Nope, we have laws against "cruel and unusual punishment".

Re:This may be a good thing...

[ian_from_brisbane]

PS-if you're found guilty of a crime in Australia do they ship you off ot the UK? No, they take away your didgeridoo and give you a rope.

Re:This may be a good thing...

[Amargosa3000]

How amusing, an American that thinks he still has free speech.

That's insane!

[Rogerborg]

It'd be like expecting Slashdot 'editors' to actually read the linked articles before posting the stories. Where would that kind of madness end?

Re:That's insane!

[$RANDOMLUSER]

We can't get the Slashdot 'editors' to read the summaries before posting the stories.

Re:That's insane!

[Anonymous Coward]

Madness?

THIS IS SLASHDOT

Re:That's insane!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be happy if they just read the titles!

Re:Australia is a bunch of criminals

[zero2k]

ha! So you're suggesting that this should only be allowed in the US where prisoners can sue for mistreatment.

there are two parts to this lawsuit, folks:

[girltard]

the second part states that Google's entire business model of placing advertising in the first 3 slots of any search result -yet making it so subtly seperated that most people are unaware that those results are paid for- constitutes deceptive trade practices. lets face it folks, even if you go to google's own FAQ section on how to make more money with adsense, 100% of the methods they tell webmasters to use are basically "blend in the colors and the font so that the ads look exactly like the rest of your page. this blending makes users happy and more likely to click on your ads! we promise it's not because you're tricking them, its just because you are making your page look more elegant" BULL FUCKING SHIT. Do you guys remember back in the late 1990s when the big moral debate at the time was whether or not search engines should start selling placement in their search results to the highest bidder? back then there was a huge uproar because people rightly said that would be deceptive. yet now, every search engine in the world DOES sell placement, because for the overwhelming majority of internet users, people simply cannot distinguish a text ad from an organic result. there was a BBC study about 12 months ago that showed that less than 12 percent of randomly sampled internet users could "spot the ads" on a google or yahoo search. this lawsuit, besides saying it is illegal to let people trick users with trademarked keyword ads, also says that the entire PLACEMENT and SEPERATION of google's ads on their search page is deceptive. jesus christ, just go to webmasterworld for a while and read the posts.. 99% of what they discuss is how to "blend" ads to make users more likely to be tricked into clicking on them. and the sad part? this "trick" is the entire financial basis for every web 2.0 company out there. Google's text ads aren't a smash hit because they are "relevant", they are a smash hit because text ads look just like hyperlinks and people don't even recognize them as ads! if your father recommends a good car dealership he's dealt with for decades, you would give that recommendation more weight than if a car salesman in a cheap flashy suit walked up to you on the sidewalk and told you he sold great cars, right? banner ads = the cheap flashy suit salesman. text ads = you think it's just part of an unbiased website, giving you helpful advice, and you have no idea the advice was paid for. in NY and other major cities, premium liquor manufacturers pay actors/models to go around to all the hottest clubs and conspicuously order drinks made with the manufacturer's booze, and then even tell people around them how great it tastes, etc etc.. is this really what we want the web to become?

Re:there are two parts to this lawsuit, folks:

[girltard]

sorry about the formatting:

the second part of this lawsuit states that Google's entire business model of placing advertising in the first 3 slots of any search result -yet making it so subtly seperated that most people are unaware that those results are paid for- constitutes deceptive trade practices.

lets face it folks, even if you go to google's own FAQ section on how to make more money with adsense, 100% of the methods they tell webmasters to use are basically "blend in the colors and the font so that the ads look exactly like the rest of your page. this blending makes users happy and more likely to click on your ads! we promise it's not because you're tricking them, its just because you are making your page look more elegant" BULL FUCKING SHIT.

Do you guys remember back in the late 1990s when the big moral debate at the time was whether or not search engines should start selling placement in their search results to the highest bidder? back then there was a huge uproar because people rightly said that would be deceptive. yet now, every search engine in the world DOES sell placement, because for the overwhelming majority of internet users, people simply cannot distinguish a text ad from an organic result.

there was a BBC study about 12 months ago that showed that less than 12 percent of randomly sampled internet users could "spot the ads" on a google or yahoo search. this lawsuit, besides saying it is illegal to let people trick users with trademarked keyword ads, also says that the entire PLACEMENT and SEPERATION of google's ads on their search page is deceptive.

jesus christ, just go to webmasterworld for a while and read the posts.. 99% of what they discuss is how to "blend" ads to make users more likely to be tricked into clicking on them. and the sad part? this "trick" is the entire financial basis for every web 2.0 company out there.

Google's text ads aren't a smash hit because they are "relevant", they are a smash hit because text ads look just like hyperlinks and people don't even recognize them as ads!

if your father recommends a good car dealership he's dealt with for decades, you would give that recommendation more weight than if a car salesman in a cheap flashy suit walked up to you on the sidewalk and told you he sold great cars, right?

banner ads = the cheap flashy suit salesman. text ads = you think it's just part of an unbiased website, giving you helpful advice, and you have no idea the advice was paid for.

in NY and other major cities, premium liquor manufacturers pay actors/models to go around to all the hottest clubs and conspicuously order drinks made with the manufacturer's booze, and then even tell people around them how great it tastes, etc etc.. is this really what we want the web to become?

Re:there are two parts to this lawsuit, folks:

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be kidding... I had never noticted this and you actually made me go waist 5 minutes of my life trying to verify that the first 3 results were paid adds. After finding the first 3 results were exactly what was searched for and in many cases not-for-profit organizations I realized you were referring to the adds at the top of the page. It never even occured to me to look at these as part of the search results.

Come on, they look nothing like a search result; they're enclosed in a colored box, they're labeled sponsored content, the lack any cached or similar page links, and the description is next to them as opposed to below. Are you complaining they used the same font, cause that what it sounds like. That makes the _whole page_ easier to read. Have you _seen_ some of the other websites lately ? Holy Crap they kill epileptic people for pete's sake ! Would you prefer red flashing animated scrolling text that vibrates around the page in a window that covers the text you're trying to read ? If that's what it takes for you to be able to distinguish between an add and a search result on the Internet, I would strongly suggest you turn off your computer and walk away. In fact, it's okay if you just pull the plug from the wall while it's still turned on if that's the only way you know to turn it off. You should never come back to it and turn it on again anyway.

Re:there are two parts to this lawsuit, folks:

[Lockejaw]

the second part of this lawsuit states that Google's entire business model of placing advertising in the first 3 slots of any search result -yet making it so subtly seperated that most people are unaware that those results are paid for- constitutes deceptive trade practices.

So labeling them "sponsored links" is still deception? If people don't want to read what they click, that's not the ad carrier's problem.

Re:there are two parts to this lawsuit, folks:

[girltard]

Define your definition of "labeling"

Does putting the word "sponsored links" 7 inches away from the ads on the other side of the page count as "clearly labeled" to you?

You remind me of the quote from hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy:

Prosser: But the plans were on display.
Arthur Dent: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar.
Prosser: That's the display department.
Arthur Dent: With a torch.
Prosser: The lights had probably gone.
Arthur Dent: So had the stairs.
Prosser: But you did see the notice, didn't you?
Arthur Dent: Oh, yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign outside the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." Ever thought of going into advertising?

Re:there are two parts to this lawsuit, folks:

[Lockejaw]

What browser are you using?
In Firefox 2, there's a sidebar with "Sponsored Links" right at the top and (on some searches) a colored box in the top center, with "Sponsored Links" in its upper-right corner (as far from the links as "What browser" is from "In Firefox" in this post).
Maybe I just need to get one of those 30-inch monitors?

Re:there are two parts to this lawsuit, folks:

[Rakarra]

There are two sponsored links sections on a google search.

The first is on the far right-hand side in a column, seperated from the other results with a vertical line. This section is easily identified as a sponsored link.

The second is just above the regular links with a different background color. The "sponsored links" tag is on the right side of this box but it is clearly within the box, and it's only because I have an ultra-wide resolution monitor that the link appears so far too the right. If you have a widescreen monitor you should be used to many, even most websites being broken, as very few websites are coded specifically to appear properly on resolutions wider than 1024.

There is a word for that

[flyingfsck]

It is called "fraud". False advertising is addressed in laws in every state or country, so it is a good thing they are taken to task over this.

Re:There is a word for that

[luke_francis2000]

Actually, fraud is covered under a different set of legislation (I believe it is state law in the case of Australia).

There may or may not be a case for fraud, or obtaining property by deception. However the Trade practices Act is the tool of choice for the ACCC. The law that the ACC is using against Google states
"A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive".

Note the use of the words "likely to mislead and deceive". I would suggest that because of this clause, they can get away with a lower burden of proof, which makes it more likely that they can prove cases.

Simply put a huge, confusing layer of bureaucracy

[Anonymous Coward]

between Aussies and Google Ads. Australian buyers of advertising could be forced to jump through costly hoops, and people with down-under IPs using the search engine might have multiple windows with license agreements and buttons to click, all of which prominantly display the reason for such annoyances.

correction: trademarked

[Anonymous Coward]

not copyrighted - but your point stands :)

google has already lost in france

[girltard]

google was making TONS of money selling ads that appeared whenever anyone typed in Louis Vuitton. There are hundreds of pirate manufacturers selling fake Louis Vuitton purses, and they were making a mint on Google.

Louis Vuitton sued Google, and Google lost. Badly.

This case is a rehash of that concept, except they have also gone a step further and claimed that Google's entire business model of displaying several paid results before the organic search results is misleading too- since they use the exact same font/size/format.. Do you think your parents or a newbie online knows that the tiny "ads by google" waaaaay over on the right hand side of the screen means that any link to the left of it for 5 inches is a paid ad?

No. They dont. People (not slashdot crowd) think that the first results are the "best" results. They have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA those are ads. None. The BBC did a study last year that showed 12 percent or less of a random sampling of web surfers could point out where the advertisements where on a typical search result page.

That folks, is why this suit is really scaring Google. Hell- even a national news story that mentioned in black and white "Hey guys, you see all this stuff on the right hand side of the screen, and on the top? Those are all paid advertisements, even though they dont look like it" could kill the whole scam.

Google has made a business model out of buying the commercial television time right after the evening's national news show, and hiring a look-alike model with a copycat set to run a second newscast, except pitching paid advertisements. Sure, a very few people might realize that it isn't the real news, but enough people will be fooled that they'll make shitloads of money.

Re:google has already lost in france

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice insight - thanks for the info. I was unaware of this particular incident.
Interesting that if I search Google for some random stuff 'windows undelete':
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=windows+un delete&btnG=Google+Search&meta=/
I see ads.

However, if I search for 'Louis Vuitton':
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Louis+Vuit ton&btnG=Google+Search&meta=/
There are NO adds at all.

One could argue that if you are wealthy enough, there is no need to participate in google-adword wars of attrition - simply sue Google for an amount sufficiently larger than the adword-related revenue and you will effectively OWN that adword as no competitors will appear on the page. Seems to have worked for 'Louis Vuitton'.

Re:google has already lost in france

[Anonymous Coward]

One could argue that if you are wealthy enough, there is no need to participate in google-adword wars of attrition - simply sue Google for an amount sufficiently larger than the adword-related revenue and you will effectively OWN that adword as no competitors will appear on the page. Seems to have worked for 'Louis Vuitton'. That only works when one owns a trademark on the word or phrase. I don't see how it could affect those paying for ads for generic words.

Very Tiresome

[Anonymous Coward]

This practice will do only one thing... Line the pockets of lawyers.

If you take this idea to one possible conclusion, the whole world will just stop. By stop, I mean no food, no transport, no power nothing nada, zilch. How do I come to this conclusion?

If going after 3rd,4th,5th etc parties becomes the norm then no company will be able to sell anything wiyhout say 10th party liability insurance.
How is this relevant?
Scenario:-
  1) A Car crashes due to a tyre blowout, kills a passenger.
  2) Lawyers for passenger, sues driver
  3) Driver sues,
          - The Company that fitted the tyre,
          - the company the shipped the tyre to the company that fitted the tyre,
          - The Trye Company that made the tyre
          - The Electricty Company that supplied the electricity when the tyre was made
          - The steel company who supplied the belting in the tyre
          - The haulage company that shipped the belting to the tyre company
          - The rubber company who produced the rubber
          - The shipping line who carried the raw rubber from say Malaysia
          - The shipyard that made the ship that carried the rubber
    etc
    etc
    etc
          - The fitter who installed the galley on the ship that carried the rubber to...

After all, they all contributed to a defective tyre being made and fitted to a car that had an accident and killed a person.

This as has been said before, plain crazy.

Paid advertising has different rules.

[Animats]

Ad agencies like Google are going to have to address this. The law on this varies by country, but given that Google regulates the style, content, and format of ads, then charges for them, they're clearly not just a passive conduit. More significantly, Google acts as an ad agency when it places ads on the web sites of others. It determines where, when, and how often the ad runs. That's acting as an ad agency. Ad agencies are routinely held liable in false advertising lawsuits. Sites on which Google ads run probably qualify for a safe harbor, but Google, acting as an ad agency placing ads on the sites of others, does not.

It's not clear how much liability an Internet ad agency has for content, but failure to take basic steps to identify the advertiser running the ad looks like negligence.

Here's a summary of US false advertising federal law. "The FTC can pursue the advertiser, its agency, and their employees. It can fine, and enjoin, them. If the advertiser or agency is a subsidiary of another company, the FTC can go after the parent. The FTC can even impose liability for false advertising on a merged successor."

Similar principles prevail in Australian law. "The Commission does not necessarily expect (advertising) agencies to independently check the technical claims made about a product, but if they are complicit in an obviously misleading presentation, and fine print is used to obscure an offer's restrictions, then difficulties start to arise."

Re:Paid advertising has different rules.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comments are based on the assumption that "google acts like an ad-agency". Please cite law that provides the definition you used for "ad-agency". Until you cite that, your argument has unstable footing.

Re:Paid advertising has different rules.

[Animats]

It's not the definition of "ad agency" that matters. It's the statutory immunities for Internet service providers and newspapers. These are narrow.

See Doctor's Associates vs. QIP Holders, which turns on the distinction between an "Internet service provider" and an "Internet content provider" in the Communications Decency Act. Content providers are liable; service providers are not. ""Information content provider" is defined as "any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service."

Re:Paid advertising has different rules.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is neither a newspaper or a ISP.

Re:Australia is a bunch of criminals

[egarff]

Heh... I make a joke (albeit poor one), and get modded as a troll. Sweet!

Did you not notice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia has consciously and deliberately been modeling itself on the United States of America for a very long time, in fact right from the beginning almost.

Every aspect of our society and culture is based on how we think it is and is done in the US.

We don't want to be Australians. To us, Aussies have embarrassing accents and are the descendents of English and Irish convicts. Nothing happens in Australia and nobody notices us. We want to be sophisticated Americans.

That's why we try so hard to make people think we are Americans downunder.

John Howard for first President of the United Staes of Australia.

Re:Did you not notice?

[Anonymous Coward]

no, actually I haven't

The only people that think that Australia is trying to act like the USA is those that have never been the USA.

It is simply not possible for the average Australian to comprehend the level of fuckedupness in US society. It's fundamentally different, from beginning to end.

Take this for example - witness the number of Americans who just assume that this is the evil Government grasping for as much money as they can - the ACCC looking for money???

It'd take at least another two hundred years of mismanagement before Australia could even come close to a passing resemblance to the USA.

Google advertising itself on search results

[ZlotyJelop]

I am running an add on google.pl targeting the word blog. The first two ads are for blogger, a service owned by google. While the disclaimer states - sponsored links - I guess google is not paying itself. Or is it? So it is just a way of moving their own service to the top of the search results.

Re:Google advertising itself on search results

[pembo13]

Yes they are paying themselves. This was discussed in a previous article.

Re:Google advertising itself on search results

[Anonymous Coward]

In the newspaper business we used to call this a "house ad."

why not sue tv stations?

[AlgorithMan]

so why don't people sue tv stations for showing misleading commercials?

Re:why not sue tv stations?

[Anonymous Coward]

They do.

And so they should. The TV station profited from showing that commercial. Therefore they have a commercial interest. Therefore they have a duty of care to ensure that the product won't poison/kill/maim people.

to everyone who thinks ads are clearly labeled:

[girltard]

Whenever I bring up the BBC study showing that only 12 percent of a randomly selected population in a study 12 months ago were able to "spot the ads" when shown a search engine result page, I always get people chiming in saying "well it's obvious to me what are ads, if you can't tell the difference then that's your own fault"

Even when I say 100 times that the ads are not targeted at slashdot or computer savvy people- they are targeted at older adults with disposable income who haven't been on the web for a decade and haven't yet learned to tune the ads out.

Even when I point out that having the tiny light gray "ads by google" 7 inches to the right of a block of ads, totally unconnected, is a bit deceitful considering as you age your vision goes and most people can't even SEE the ads by google text, much less know that it applies to hyperlinks that may be nowhere near it.. Everyone says "well, thats their own fault."

Douglas Adams saw this coming... And no, the last sentence was not added by me. It's in the script---

Prosser: But the plans were on display.
Arthur Dent: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar.
Prosser: That's the display department.
Arthur Dent: With a torch.
Prosser: The lights had probably gone.
Arthur Dent: So had the stairs.
Prosser: But you did see the notice, didn't you?
Arthur Dent: Oh, yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign outside the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." Ever thought of going into advertising?

Interesting, as a former Overture/Goto person

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the rights or wrongs of the case, here's some observations.

1) Bidding on a Copyright/TM Name is still in dispute, although a number of companies have gotten settlements.

  eg: Bidded Search Phrase: Luis Vitton Ad: Buy Your Loved One a Bag Similar to Louis Vitton --- arguably ok.

2) This ISNT the same as the above PLUS a misleading ad.

eg: Bidded Search Phrase: Luis Vitton Ad: Buy Your Loved One a Louis Vitton Bag (but link goes to a fake site). --

3) Even worse is:

      Bidded Search Phrase: BMW SF Autos Ad: Come to BMW SF Autos - (but ad goes to Joe's of SF Audi dealer).

4) Can Google be expected to police it's ads? Unfortunately Google had relied a lot on its automated relevance engine to deal with the first type of problem. Goto/Overture used Editors (a lot of them, the cost of this partly the reason why they lost a lot of contracts, although Google's must have search also contributed). However, Editors would detect most forms of obvious fraud like 2 & 3, and the decision about the (1) would be handled per complaint typically). Goto?overture didnt have relevance adjustments which also contributed to loss of revenue for ads like (1) and non contreversial.

5) In summary, Google will probably have to employe more relevance editors to deal with 2 & 3 , which will reduce its profits. Probably not a great deal, but interesting nevertheless.

Whether or not it is just that it is liable for the ads placed, I don't know. I have a feeling that as long as they respond promptly to complaints, they will probably be treated as a Common Carrier than an ad Agency. And believe me, we probably want that approach - If Google goes down, Craigslist and Slashdot may go down. HOWEVER. They are charging for placing the ads, so it could be argued they are profitting from the placements. I dont know if this affects the argument.

Imagine if Slashdot charged me $5 to place an "illegal" comment (eg negative about race, gender etc) ?

AC

Google recommends the use of trademarked names

[pongo000]

I run an automotive performance tuning business, and use Google AdWords (with mixed success) to advertise. Google recently introduced a new feature where they recommend keywords to use based upon, I assume, traffic profiles with similar businesses.

Guess what some of the suggested adwords were?

You get a thousand points if you guessed "names of your competitors." Several obviously trademarked names showed up in their list.

I found this to be quite interesting in that Google was practically *inviting* me to use these trademarked names to drive clicks to my site.

Tempting? Yes...but in the end, not tempted enough to violate Google's own policies which prohibit this practice.

It did get me to wondering, though: Can I be held liable for false advertising or in violation of Google's TOS if I follow Google's keyword recommendations?

Re:Google recommends the use of trademarked names

[RIPEfruit]

The adwords recommended by Google are simply common 'keywords' associated with your industry. Of course they will include competitors business names, just as your competitors might see your business name pop-up if they did the same search.

As stated in another post, only pirates use competitors names and are quickly removed by Google. If you were dumb enough to try, you would find the same thing.

As to the advertiser who creates a Google advert and directs the traffic to his competitor... how dumb is that! So, are we funding ACCC to go after Google because they have the dumbest advertiser on the planet?

Wish they were my competitor.

Re:Google recommends the use of trademarked names

[ed.markovich]

It did get me to wondering, though: Can I be held liable for false advertising or in violation of Google's TOS if I follow Google's keyword recommendations?

Sorry for most likely a silly question - I've never dealt with paid online advertising but it would seem to me that there's a difference between specifying the keywords which cause your ad to appear and the ad itself.

For example, if I am in the pasta sauce business, it seems OK to me if I bought ads for keyword "Ragú" that read "Why not try Ed's Friggin Awesome Sauce instead?". I don't see anything wrong with that. On the other hand, if my ad read "Official Ragú Sauce Page Here!" but the link went to my site instead, that's wrong.

Cound this explain the discrepancy between the TOS and keyword recomendations that you're seeing? The former may pertain to the content of the ad while the later, to the search terms which make the ad appear.

As I said, I know nothing about this so this is just a guess. If I am wrong in my logic, I'd appreciate the lesson. Thanks!

News papers are liable as are television channells

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia there is a requirement for the publisher, be it paper, tv, or google, to verify basic levels of accuracy of advertising and ensure the content is acceptable. You cannot publish something that breaks a law, be it a consumer protection law, as in the case of google, or decency, trademark, incitement, libel etc and it is down to the individual person or corporation to ensure that it complies with the law.

The ACCC has stated it doesn't require the publisher to confirm the technical validity of an advertisers product or service, however using advertising that deliberately misleads through misrepresentation is illegal. In this case the "trading post" which is a newspaper and website which sell second hand items including vehicles, bought the adwords "Kloster Ford" and "Charlestown Toyota" both of which are registered trading names and businesses that belong to other entities and have NO affiliation with "trading post". Combining this with not obviously separating the advertising from the "organic" results has been deemed by the ACCC to be deliberately misleading.

It would be just as illegal to run an ad on Channel 9 advertising a special on Ford cars and then have all calls redirected to a Toyota dealership. The advertising company, their agency and Channel 9 would all be liable.

Second issue

[pbjones]

There is a second issue being reported and this is the issues of getting genuine search results vs. getting results from paid advertising, and googles failure to identify the paid ads clearly. In Oz if an article in a newspaper etc. is sponsored by someone like a company, then the article must state that fact.

My Stupid Neighbor

[Anonymous Coward]

My neighbor saw this new car on TV, so he went out and bought it. On the way home he ran over my cousin. I am going to sue:

  1. The automobile manufacturer
  2. The automobile dealership
  3. That son of a bitch that sold him that car
  4. The guy that has been washing all the cars on the lot for the last 6 months
  5. The tire manufacturer
  6. The fucking country that exported the car
  7. The person that sold the dealership the lot
  8. The asshole that built the dealership
  9. The bank that gave the dealer the loan
10. The bank manager that signed the loan

Don't get me started. Don't even get me started.

11. The TV manufacturer
12. The jerks that sold me the TV
13. The cable company
14. The coax manufacturer
15. The local cable channel
16. The company that made the commercial
17. The company that manufactured the camera that filmed the commercial
18. The camera operator
19. The country that the commercial was filmed in
20. The manufacturer of the shoes my cousin was wearing
21. SHIT! Myself, why not!

Did I miss anyone?

Signed,

The Cowardly Lion

something similar

[gaspyy]

I once made a search for "serious magic" (it's a video editing app for chroma-keying).

The first result on Google (paid result) was:

Serious Magic
www.FXhome.com/CompositeLab Special Effects On Your Desktop Simple Powerful Software. Try Now!

This kind of result implies that FXHome are the makers of Serious Magic, while in fact they are a competitor! (Serious Magic was bought by Adobe, btw).

This practice is unethical, to say the least.

Google is an ad agency in disguise, not a "common carrier". They check if the ad is for tobacco or gambling so they can - and should - check for illegal/unfair practices too.

Mod me down Google fanboys. See if I care.

cash for comments

[bug1]

Well said above, i'd also like to mention that the ACCC's actions here are consistent with their actions in other mediums, namely radio.

Five years or so ago the ACCC sued a famous Australian talk-back radio radio personalities for not having a clear seperation between his comments and advertising. e.g. whenever a caller rang to comment about the telephone system he would always be defending one telephone company who happebned to be a sponsor, it was considered deceptive and misleading. (search for John Laws, Cash for comments)

ACCC also said they were picking on google in the hope that it would have a flow on effect to other search engines.

I'm a little confused...

[Grail]

What's this stuff that everyone's talking about with "ads by Google" way off the right of the search result?

Any time I search Google, I only ever get "organic" results in the main portion of the page, with a "Sponsored links" column over to the left. I've visited all the links in the main portion and they seem legit.

Can someone suggest a search term that will produce anything that looks like a sponsored link (ie: "non-organic" in the ACCC's lingo)? Perhaps the stealth ads are only visible to IE users?

Get some perspective..

[Anonymous Coward]

Too many posts here by clueless foreigners bashing Australia needlessly. As stated by others, the body who submitted the case to the courts are a non-profit government body, so are doing this for no personal gain, but proceeding with actions which represent what they feel will help to provide a fair environment for people who use Google.

Those saying this suit has no grounds obviously lack any knowledge of how the business world normally operates when it comes to trademarks and trademark associations.

What is wrong with this suit, and this is where I agree with others, the business ultimately responsible is the advertiser, not the medium, but it doesn't mean Google should not hold some degree of responsibility for the ADVERTISING content of their site (to make a distinction from the general search results).

Their advertising content is funding their business, so when a deception occurs, one they profit from, they are effectively viewable as being 'in conspiracy' with the associated business. I'm not suggesting accountability for the content of their normal search results, but surely having greater control / management over the way *their clients* advertisements are presented would be beneficial to them in others ways anyhow.