Slashdot Mirror
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."
Perhaps the company placing the ads of a rival should be sued for false advertising.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
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?
"This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
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.
'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
No Comment.
"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.
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?
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."
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.
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.
Speak for yourself.
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?