Slashdot Mirror
Google Sued Over Deceptive Search Results
biggles266 writes "Internet goliath Google claims to rank search results by relevance, but the search engine engages in deceptive conduct by selling off the top positions to commercial partners, a Sydney court has heard.
The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) is taking world-first legal action in the Federal Court against Google Inc over allegedly deceptive conduct related to sponsored links on its websites.
The ACCC has brought a two-pronged case against Trading Post and Google — including subsidiaries Google Australia and Google Ireland — for potentially misleading consumers.
The consumer watchdog alleges Google does not do enough to differentiate "organic" search results — those ranked by relevance — from sponsored links which appear at the top of the results page."
Suing my doctor because of the choice of meds he offered me happened to match those in the advertising crapola that he got sent.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
So they should do something other than giving them a different background color and adding the text "Sponsored Links"?
The cake is a pie
Don't Google's sponsored links say "Sponsored Links" right next to them? They also have a different background which is visible even on my low contrast display. Anything more would make it look obnoxious I think.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Thats utter bullshit; the results are only ambiguous if you can't read.
Does anyone here have trouble telling the difference between paid ad placements and non-paid search results on Google?
Since when does a website legally have to tell you what is an isn't an ad?
but if you cannot tell the difference between those adds and the "results" you probably shouldn't be on the internet.
~Vexed and loving it!
turn off "SafeSearch filtering". That ought to give a more representative result on what consumers want.
You know it makes sense, a little reminder from jointm1k.
One appears to be the sponsored links section, which seems like it ought to be obvious to anyone looking at a results page.
The other issue is that Google appears to have sold the names of some local car dealerships as AdWords to a competitor. That seems to be a trademark violation, at very least. It does raise a question of responsibility, however. Is Google responsible for checking all uses of AdWords, to make sure that they are not trademark violations? Many cases are clear (as this one is), but others are more ambiguous. Clearly, Trading Post is in the wrong, but does Google share that responsibility?
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
Maybe, but this is happening in Australia. I can almost understand not reading the article, but see the first and second sentences of the summary. sheesh
Developers: We can use your help.
Here we go again. Let us keep adjusting society based off of the dumbest individuals and not the average individual.
I read the article and decided to try to get some sponsored links to appear. Doing a search for "Digital Camera" resulted in some pretty obviously highlighted results that have the words "Sponsored Links" in the highlight. Who the hell is this not clear enough for? I am not an advocate of mass murder but we really need to figure out a way to weed the gene pool.
Here's what their complaint states [in simple terms]. Company B bought adwords that included the trademarks of company A. Company B is paying Google so that when you search for company A it gives links that point to Company B instead.
E.g. a google for [say] Pepsi brings links that *say* Pepsi but instead go to Coke when you click on them.
Since Google is selling this service they have no rights to use other peoples trademarks (making the distinction between this and their non-profit web search).
This is akin to company B buying ads in the local paper that say "Come to Company A's new sale, located at 123 Front St." and when you get to 123 Front St, you find Company B selling the same products. They're using the name (which is presumably trademarked) to draw attention. Trademark law says you can't do that.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I think I'm pretty astute at recognising that sort of deceptive practice, but these things have caught me out more than once.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Why would Google "owe" any of us anything? Couldn't they just do whatever they want, I don't think I ever signed a contract with them specifying what behavior they are bound to?
Google's ranking specifics are top secret.
Anybody claiming to know them that doesn't work for Google is full of shit.
Anybody who tells you them who says they credibly know is lying about their employment with Google, or will be very shortly fired and then sued.
There are LOTS of NDAs involved the specifics of how Google works.
That said, Google uses all the methods for determining ranking that are easy to guess, keywords, links to the site, relevance, people who clicked on them, etc.
Rest assured however, the rankings in the main search list on Google are not paid ones, but the result of whatever top secret process they use.
Anybody confused by sponsored links vs. search results on Google is a goddamn idiot and should sue their parents for hitting them in the head as a child too many times instead.
Google is WAY better about disclosing their ads, as in the past (and possibly now) Microsoft, Yahoo, Alta-Vista, Ask, and a bunch of others have been caught selling unlabled rankings mixed in with results. That's why they suck, and that's why most people don't use them.
Go sue Yahoo instead morons. For all the stuff people have to say that might be a valid complaint against Google, hiding paid results in the search results sure the fuck isn't one of them.