Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Aussies Sue Over Misleading Google Ads

Posted by kdawson on from the common-carrier-or-policeman dept.

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."

6 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  2. bait and switch by spyrochaete · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:bait and switch by spyrochaete · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.
    2. Re:bait and switch by ucla74 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  3. Re:Paid advertising has different rules. by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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."

  4. Google recommends the use of trademarked names by pongo000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?