Misleading Ads: ACCC Wins Appeal Against Google

theweatherelectric writes "As previously noted on Slashdot, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has been involved in a long-running legal battle with Google. Vijith Vazhayil of Delimiter writes, 'The Full Federal Court of Australia has ruled that Google breached the law by displaying misleading or deceptive advertisements on its search results pages. The decision follows an appeal by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), following an earlier decision in favour of Google. The ACCC had first filed the case in July 2007 in the Federal Court alleging that Google had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by publishing eleven advertisements on Google's search results page. The headline of each of the advertisements in question comprised a business name, product name or web address of a competitor's business not sponsored, affiliated or associated with the particular advertiser.'"

Comments

How is it illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

When was Google, or search engines in general, ever legally bound to display anything except what ever they wanted to? I'm not saying Google did in fact do what the ACCC claims.. but so what?

Re:How is it illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

When was Google, or search engines in general, ever legally bound to display anything except what ever they wanted to? I'm not saying Google did in fact do what the ACCC claims.. but so what?

Anonymous coward, you decribe google as a search engine. Google is an advertising business. Google earns 98% of it's revenue from advertising. Search is jut their product. It's like saying McDonald's is a hamburger when McDonalds is actually property and fast food franchise business. Because google is an advertising business it is regulated by the laws of the countries it operates in. It's no different to any other business in that regard. And it has properly been found guilty in this instance. We should be protected from advertising businesses trying to mislead us.

Re:How is it illegal

[commlinx]

I believe it's covered under deceptive advertising laws. Normally the ACCC does good work and while I agree with the vibe of what they're trying to achieve - disallowing a banner to display or reference one product but link to a site selling a competitive product, I think in this case they got the wrong target. I'd much rather them go after the entity that placed the ad.

That's been the traditional approach taken with radio, television and print advertisements.

Re:How is it illegal

[bloodhawk]

Google is an advertising company, therefore google must obey the advertising laws of the associated countries. In Australia the ACCC is the agency that chases down breaches of the advertising law. You will find an equivalent in just about every country.

Re:How is it illegal

[Chuck Chunder]

I think in this case they got the wrong target. I'd much rather them go after the entity that placed the ad.

If you read the link you'll see they went after both which is, I think, entirely reasonable.

Re:How is it illegal

[nospam007]

". Search is jut their product. "

_YOU_ are their product. They sell your eyes to their clients. The search engine is the bait to get you hooked.

Re:How is it illegal

[s0nicfreak]

Why exactly should we be protected? Why should it not be left up to us to actually think? All of advertising is misleading in some way.

Re:How is it illegal

[__aaltlg1547]

There are laws against false advertisements. The novelty here is charging the medium rather than the ad's creator.

It would be like charging a radio station for airing an ad by a Ford dealer who claimed to have yhd best prices on new Chevy's.

This is silly.... but unfortunately that is....

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost of doing business internationally. Having to deal with each country's "silly" laws. Whatever they are in your field. This is why multi-nationals have TEAMS of teams of lawyers for this crap. Google just got too big too fast and didn't cross all its I(s) and J(s) and dot all of its T(s).... or maybe that was what they did do... BUT, either way... Every country has laws that don't make sense in other nations. IE: Germany- unable to deny holocaust, Thailand- you can't even hint at the King doing anything wrong, etc, etc. In countries like the US only saying things like Invoking violence or mayhem (calling Fire in a theater) [saying you will kill the POTUS or VPOTUS are two notable exceptions... we have a bad track record on that....].... but if you act like a tool and say you don't believe the holocaust we handle it by public ostracism instead of a law. However, it is well within other countries' rights to pass laws we all feel are silly.

So therefore... If AU requires ads to not be bought by competitors, then Google has the choice of not doing business there or following their rules. Q.E.D. Our opinions on the validity of the rules be damned.

Re:This is silly.... but unfortunately that is....

[dackroyd]

If AU requires ads to not be bought by competitors, .

Competitors are still allowed to bid on other companies trademarked names - it's just that the link can't be deceptive.

e.g. Toyota could bid on keywords like 'ford truck' to have one of Toyota's ads come up.

What they can't do is have the ad say 'Hot deals on Ford F-150 trucks' and then have it link through to a site that only sells Toyota trucks, as that is a deceptive advert.

Search engine is irrelevant

[Chuck Chunder]

This isn't about search results. It's about adverts saying "Brand XYZ" that take people to "Brand ABC".