FTC Demands Search Engines Separate Paid Advertisements From Search Results

An anonymous reader notes that the FTC has sent letters to search engine companies (PDF) telling them to make sure advertisements are clearly distinguishable from search results. "According to both the FTC staff's original search engine guidance and the updated guidance, failing to clearly and prominently distinguish advertising from natural search results could be a deceptive practice. The updated guidance emphasizes the need for visual cues, labels, or other techniques to effectively distinguish advertisements, in order to avoid misleading consumers, and it makes recommendations for ensuring that disclosures commonly used to identify advertising are noticeable and understandable to consumers. The letters note that the principles of the original guidance still apply, even as search and the business of search continue to evolve. The letters observe that social media, mobile apps, voice assistants on mobile devices, and specialized search results that are integrated into general search results offer consumers new ways of getting information. The guidance advises that regardless of the precise form that search takes now or in the future, paid search results and other forms of advertising should be clearly distinguishable from natural search results."

Comments

Sounds like BS to me

[DoofusOfDeath]

Google never indicated, to me at least, what was in the search results. I don't see how it could be deceptive.

And even if it was, does that matter, since I don't pay Google one red cent for the service?

Re:Sounds like BS to me

[Archangel Michael]

What I don't like, is the implication that overbearing government protectionism via the Nanny State is the only solution to protect the idiots of the world from being idiots. What you don't realize is ... to quote Ron White ... "You can't fix stupid"

There is no reason for the FTC to do this, unless there is some specific company (companies) that are doing this. In which case, they should name and shame them and actually do their job. Firing a warning letter to every search engine is like paddling a canoe and getting a warning shot from a battleship for going too fast.

And this is one of the reasons why I hate big government. Unnecessary NannyStatism because ninnies like you can't figure out what is and what isn't an ad on google (even though they are clearly marked).

Re:Sounds like BS to me

[icebike]

Google already does this... if you search for a product the first results you get are "Ads related to {Your Search Terms}" There are usually two or three online retailers followed by local retailers and google map showing those local retailers.

Actually the FTC letter is much clearer on this than the summary. (Hey, its Slashdot, what else is new?)

The FTC letter addresses PAID search results. (As well as the super-set of paid search results that are PROMOTED search results).

These must be distinguished from hits on the text of the page. The net result is that if your company is a Google advertiser (adwords for example) and one of the hits shown brings up your Adwords link it must be clearly delineated from the list of hits that just trigger based on the content of the page.

Even if both are present, only the paid advertising must be so marked.

And I agree, Google does a pretty good job of making the distinction, both on the desktop and on mobile devices.

Bing: Not so much.

For instance, I searched a random thing: Peach Trees.
I used both Bing and Google. Google clearly showed what was paid advertising.
With Bing, I was never really sure, other than one result is always promoted to the top with an option to "only show results from".

I'm left guessing if ANY results are paid or not.

Try it again, using any random make of car, say Ford Mustang or Toyota Prius.
Google clearly differentiates the Paid ads.
Bing does not.

not just search engines

[ncohafmuta]

not just search engine results, but identify them from even a website's local content. how many times have you gone to a site to download a file and had to figure out which button was the real download button?

Re:Example screenshots of the abuse...

[recoiledsnake]

Your second link, in the comments has a solution to the problem presented in the article. If someone has a monitor that only displays 256 colors, and doesn't display my high color picture correctly, that is my fault how? How about creating a solution to the problem, an alternative CSS for Google that can be used on older / crappier monitors, rather than complaining?

That's it guys, no one can complain about any problem on any internet website if it's fixable by CSS or a browser extension, and if the "complainer" hasn't gone around to every internet user's home and installed it.

This is like Monsanto suing farmers for not removing every microscopic seed that got blown over from the next farm by the wind or by animals or insects.

The 400lb gorilla in search having an effective monopoly changed it from this http://cdn.userstyles.org/style_screenshot_thumbnails/58617_after.jpeg to this http://www.ismoip.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Screenshot1.png to this http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png to make more money by confusing people, and this is my fault because I haven't created a CSS style to change it(which is extremely trivial even for a beginner web dev)? Wow.

Also, I loved how you totally ignored the fact that it's not just crappy monitors that cause the problem but it has been scientifically proven(see the link i provided in the post) that older people cannot see contrast well.

Now you're going to blame me for not inventing an anti-aging drug to fix the problem. I can see it coming.