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
Ok, so they are talking about the "Sponsered Links" section. Well, it's in a beige background, different from the rest of the results. It does say "sponsered links", but granted, that is off to the right of the results.
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!
Obviously the consumer cannot tell the difference because it is not a "Flash" ad moving wildly across the screen saying "Spank the Monkey, Spank the Monkey!"
I guess using Google does not qualify your ability to understand the search results.
Seriously, is suing google the newest business model in the US?
Did Australia become part of the US when Bush was down there last week?
This guy's the limit!
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.
FTFA, one of the complaints generated involved searches that produced sponsored results that linked to a party with no commercial affiliation to the object of the search. Given that a user understood that the link was sponsored, they might wrongly assume a relationship with the business that does not exist. This could be benign, or damaging to the reputation of the business. It's more complex than whether users know whether a link is advertising or the genuine algorithmic results of the search.
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
"sponsered links"
Ahhh! Now I see the problem. Google misspelled "sponsored". You'd think they could afford a spell checker.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
No, the FTA states that selling adwords to COMPETITORS is deceptive. If you read past the first sentence you'll note that a competitor bought adwords including trademarks of a rival and have it link to them instead.
The complaint isn't stating that adwords or sponsored links is deceptive. It's talking about how in this instance it's being abused.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Something similar was already an issue in France (over two years ago) - akin to selling the Versace adword to ISL et. Al. French Court Orders Google to Stop Competing Ad Displays. I imagine the same result will follow. I guess it isn't "wrong" until the law says it is, so from a business perspective, why stop doing the same type of thing.
The article skims the details of those involved. The ACCC is one of the few worthwhile government departments, who basically prosecute breaches of consumer rights like false advertising. The Trading Post is the most popular classified ad newspaper and website, of which the majority of ads are for cars and motorbikes. It is very likely that the ACCC will get their way, which probably means the Trading Post gets charged for fraudulently posing as an affiliate or representative of the dealerships. It is far from clear how Google will be affected, but already google.com.au seem to have pulled the sponsored links from the top.
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?
Um...
I've run adwords campaigns before, very useful things. The best thing about them is that they're cheap as chips, and they're instant.
If it's just one company hogging the sponsored links with fakes, then it's more than likely this is a tiny portion of their advertising budget, so probably doesn't stretch to much... have you actually seen the keywords involved here... they wouldn't exactly constitute a major investment on the part of the advertiser... (well, not until about an hour ago anyway)
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.
Informing people about the scams, shams, and bunk that assault them on a daily basis. http://www.jeremyduffy.com
The complaint isn't stating that adwords or sponsored links is deceptive. It's talking about how in this instance it's being abused. I'm not terribly shocked that the Slashdot summary is poorly worded to convey the contents of the source article.
Sad that so many bad articles continue to make it through, even with the Firehose.
That's "fascist Australia", you insensitive clod.