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."

Comments

popularity != relevance

[ColinPL]

Google does not do enough to differentiate "organic" search results -- those ranked by relevance

Google search results are ranked by popularity, not relevance.

Re:Really... you can't tell the difference?

[ShieldW0lf]

Does anyone here have trouble telling the difference between paid ad placements and non-paid search results on Google?

Yes. Lots of people.

Since when does a website legally have to tell you what is an isn't an ad?

Couldn't happen soon enough for me. I think advertisers should be tortured to death, personally.

I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

would like to see the sponsored links more clearly separated. A box round them or even just a horizontal line underneath would be fine for me. But the current pale yellow background is not all that obvious and pretty-much invisible in some lighting conditions.

I don't think better separation would be harmful to Google - I would happily read the sponsored links if I were looking to buy something, and I feel deceived if I accidentally click on when I'm only looking for info. Of course, if I'm only looking for info, my click is of no value to a sales site anyway unless they are deliberately looking for accidental clicks to raise brand awareness, and I'm not sure that associating a brand with feeling deceived is good for the brand anyway.

Re:Lowest common denominator

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not an advocate of mass murder but we really need to figure out a way to weed the gene pool.

Then you're first up against the wall when the revolution comes, moron. Brains don't give an evolutionary advantage. Getting laid a lot does.

And almost no cases of mental deficiency are due to heredity. Most are due to illness or injury. My oldest daughter, for instance, had the umbilical cord wrapped around her neck when she was born, giving her a measured IQ of 65. Her sister's is 132. Had the oldest not been so unlucky as to be disabled like that, she could well have been a genius (but not likely as Evil-X is a fucking moron).

We slashdotters are being weeded out of the gene pool. Meanwhile Susie Crackwhore in Hicksville, MO has fourteen kids. Her genes are the ones that will rule the future, not the porn watching, masturbating ass burgers here.

Your insensitivity is forgiven you, since it obviously is a result of your lack of intelligence.

-mcgrew

PS- fuck you.

Google's not perfect, but I call BS on this story

[JeremyDuffy]

Not doing a enough to differentiate their sponsored links? Of all the search engines around, they're the ones who differentiated it the most with a different font and background color. It seems strange to accuse them of this when they (at one time) were the only search engine to bother making the difference obvious. Interesting to note though... After reading this article, I checked google and there are NO sponsored links anywhere.