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

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: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 ;)

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: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.

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: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.