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

I hate to say it

[Vexor]

but if you cannot tell the difference between those adds and the "results" you probably shouldn't be on the internet.

Flash Ads only

[Herkum01]

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.

Re:Tag

[gEvil (beta)]

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?

Lowest common denominator

[Kazrath]

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.

This is about misleading

[Cracked Pottery]

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.

Re:what next

[tgatliff]

Well if you doctor is getting paid for picking those drugs, then yes, then that would be next to go after... :-)

Personally, if Google was not specifying that the links were "sponsored", I would agree that is was deceptive behavior and think it was wrong. From my understanding, though, they do seperate their paid for links from the other search results so as a consumer I feel I am well informed... Meaning, when I look as the "sponsored links" section, I am fully aware that these companies paid for these links. That to me is what matters...

it's legit

[tomstdenis]

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.

Re:it's legit

[pnuema]

Yes. You can't publish libel, regardless if you're the author or not. Why would copyright or trademark laws be any different?

It's part of the "value" you contribute to society as a publisher that you check facts, authorship, etc. Any jackass can run a printing mill, or website.

Bullshit. You are talking out of your ass.

This took all of 3 seconds to find. Granted, may be Penn. specific, but I would be stunned not to find similar laws in other localities. Quote:

Newspaper Liability Under the UTPCPL

The provisions of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law shall not apply to any owner, publisher, printer, agent, or employee of a newspaper or other publication, periodical or circular, who, in good faith and without knowledge of the falsity or deceptive character thereof, publishes, causes to be published or takes part in the publication of such advertisement. (73 P.S. Â201-3)

If Google didn't remove the Ad-word association when asked, that's one thing. Otherwise, I can't see how they are in violation of American law, and if they are in violation of Australian law, I'm amazed papers stay in business there. Something else is going on.

Re:What, the "Sponsered Links" section?

[tomstdenis]

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.