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."
Only in America! Err...wait.
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.
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."
UTF-8: There and Back Again
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.
It'd be like expecting Slashdot 'editors' to actually read the linked articles before posting the stories. Where would that kind of madness end?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
"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.
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.
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.
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."
I would love it if articles would link to the sites of the people involved.
/ 792088/fromItemId/142
See http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId
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.