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."

what next

[oliverthered (187439)]

Suing my doctor because of the choice of meds he offered me happened to match those in the advertising crapola that he got sent.

Re:what next

[tgatliff (311583)]

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...

Re:what next

[tha_mink (518151)]

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...

And how much is Google charging you for their service again? Oh right, it's free. So....nothing. Maybe you can get your money back.
Seriously, why a lawsuit? If you don't agree with their policies, then get them to change them through bad press. Why does everybody have to sue for everything that a company does or doesn't do?
Sponsored or not, the link they provide either works for you or it doesn't. Meaning, you get the content you were looking for or you don't. If you get the content you're looking for, you come back. If you don't (consistently) then you find another search engine. It's that simple. Obviously, Google is better at finding what people are looking for quicker an easier than everyone else. Sponsored or not, I don't care. If I find what I'm looking for, I come back.

Re:what next

[sydsavage (453743)]

Seriously, why a lawsuit?

Here's your answer. [google.com] Note the large number labeled Mkt Cap.

If somebody can't tell by the colored box around the sponsored links, or hey, the text that reads "Sponsored Links", then what exactly could Google do to make it more obvious that these results are paid for?

Re:

[bit01 (644603)]

If somebody can't tell by the colored box around the sponsored links, or hey, the text that reads "Sponsored Links", then what exactly could Google do to make it more obvious that these results are paid for?

The reality [google.com] , not some marketing fiction, is that the majority of users can't tell the difference. That's fraud and the ACCC is right to intervene.

Answering your question: Google could use a different font, stop using weasily words like "sponsored" instead of "advertising", use more prominent colors

Re:

[pipingguy (566974)]

Answering your question: Google could use a different font, stop using weasily words like "sponsored" instead of "advertising", use more prominent colors, use more prominent boxes, use explanatory phrases like "these links are paid advertisements", even put ad's on a separate page.

Huh? If people are too dumb to be able to tell the difference between "sponsored" links and relevant sites returned from a search inquiry, then maybe they should ask someone else to find things for them. Google's ads are pretty

Re:

[delinear (991444)]

We should also remember that, before Google came along, it was common for paid-for advertising to be completely mixed in with organic links, and for paid links to be given much more prominence based on this fact. The result was that you'd often have to go three or four pages deep before you found organic links.

With the Google approach there is a clear separation for those who want/understand it and for those who don't, well, at least they get a mix of organic and paid links on every page without having to w

Re:what next

[JacksBrokenCode (921041)]

Since when has "sponsored" been a weasel word? When a sports team or race car has sponsors' logos all over their gear, does anyone doubt that there was a business arrangement? When a TV program has an announcer's voice saying, "Sponsored by Brand X", does anyone doubt it's an advertisement? Even if "sponsored" does not explicitely mean that money changed hands, it does mean that those results are there as the result of a sponsor, meaning they are not the product of the Google search algorithm. That isn't fraud just because some people are illiterate.

If changing the background color and adding a border to segregate sponsored links from search results is not enough, why should we assume that using a different font will make a difference?

Re:

[misleb (129952)]

Suing my doctor because of the choice of meds he offered me happened to match those in the advertising crapola that he got sent.

I don't think we're talking about mere coincidence here. If you could show that your doctor was taking money to prescribe specific medications (and not using his own medical judgement), I suspect there might be a lawsuit in there somewhere. I know I'd be pretty pissed. As it is, there is only an indirect association between what you are prescribed and the advertising crapola from

What, the "Sponsered Links" section?

[Laebshade (643478)]

Are they talking about the "Sponsered Links" section at the top? They're clearly marked. Or are they talking about the normal results?

Re:What, the "Sponsered Links" section?

[Laebshade (643478)]

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.

Re:What, the "Sponsered Links" section?

[Blue Stone (582566)]

Any of the 'sponsored' links Google serve up on a search results page are a damn sight easier to discern from the normal results than those 'advertisement features' that appear in magazines - which try as hard as they can to emulate the look and feel of legitimate features, with the only concession to those who value the truth being a small 'advertisemnt feature' tag placed as discretely as possible somewhere on the page.

I think I'm pretty astute at recognising that sort of deceptive practice, but these things have caught me out more than once.

Re:What, the "Sponsered Links" section?

[MyLongNickName (822545)]

"sponsered links"

Ahhh! Now I see the problem. Google misspelled "sponsored". You'd think they could afford a spell checker.

Re:What, the "Sponsered Links" section?

[Nazlfrag (1035012)]

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.

Re:

[ajs (35943)]

You could just RTFA before posting a comment and then not look quite as foolish.

"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."

That quote was in the summary too. I think the GP is just confused, and seeking confirmation that the suit is really that baseless. They're essentially claiming that having sponsored ads at the top of a search results page (that are marked as such) is somehow misleading.

Why the heck is it that EVERY day, Slashdot publishes something negative about Google that's totally insane?!

I'm a LONG time Slashdot reader, and I have to say that I've begun to question WHY that is.

Re:What, the "Sponsered Links" section?

[tomstdenis (446163)]

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.

Re:

[charleste (537078)]

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 [slashdot.org]. 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.

Re:

[ajs (35943)]

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.

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.

popularity != relevance

[ColinPL (1001084)]

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

Google search results are ranked by popularity, not relevance.

Re:

[ajs (35943)]

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

Google search results are ranked by popularity, not relevance.

This is incorrect.

Google's results take popularity into account, but they also look for your key words in the body of the page, assess where they are in absolute terms, and relative to each other, and also perform some nebulous other analysis on relevance (e.g. articles with your terms in the title are ranked somewhat higher, though title-spamming has limited the usefulness of that).

Re:popularity != relevance

[jafiwam (310805)]

Google's ranking specifics are top secret.

Anybody claiming to know them that doesn't work for Google is full of shit.

Anybody who tells you them who says they credibly know is lying about their employment with Google, or will be very shortly fired and then sued.

There are LOTS of NDAs involved the specifics of how Google works.

That said, Google uses all the methods for determining ranking that are easy to guess, keywords, links to the site, relevance, people who clicked on them, etc.

Rest assured however, the rankings in the main search list on Google are not paid ones, but the result of whatever top secret process they use.

Anybody confused by sponsored links vs. search results on Google is a goddamn idiot and should sue their parents for hitting them in the head as a child too many times instead.

Google is WAY better about disclosing their ads, as in the past (and possibly now) Microsoft, Yahoo, Alta-Vista, Ask, and a bunch of others have been caught selling unlabled rankings mixed in with results. That's why they suck, and that's why most people don't use them.

Go sue Yahoo instead morons. For all the stuff people have to say that might be a valid complaint against Google, hiding paid results in the search results sure the fuck isn't one of them.

Not differentiating?

[ucblockhead (63650)]

So they should do something other than giving them a different background color and adding the text "Sponsored Links"?

Re:

[moderatorrater (1095745)]

You're also forgetting the different format of the result. In reality, if I've ever confused the two, it was several years ago. I find this suit ridiculous.

Sponsored Links

[pembo13 (770295)]

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.

Re:

[the dark hero (971268)]

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.

Indeed. I work for a small company who happens to pay to be within the top entries, but i thought that much was common practice. At the time i learned that the results were no different than the regular results.

Give Me a Break

[cromar (1103585)]

Thats utter bullshit; the results are only ambiguous if you can't read.

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

[MrGHemp (189288)]

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?

Re:

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

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 hate to say it

[Vexor (947598)]

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

Re:

[CodeBuster (516420)]

It is not as easy as you might think. Advertisers have been doing the same thing in print magazines for some time now. They try to mimic the layout, font, and look of an actual magazine article with pseudo-content related to some impartial product comparison or industry problem and how their product (the one being advertised) was proven "superior" in a battery of tests or in "interviews" with experts or some such bull. The entire goal of this "stealth" advertising is to trick the unsuspecting reader into be

Flash Ads only

[Herkum01 (592704)]

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.

ACCC should

[jointm1k (591234)]

turn off "SafeSearch filtering". That ought to give a more representative result on what consumers want.

Two separate issues

[johndiii (229824)]

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?

Lowest common denominator

[Kazrath (822492)]

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.

Re:

[pembo13 (770295)]

Easily done: stop putting obvious warning labels like "don't put your hand in the electric socket" or "don't swallow this bottle of drain cleaner" or "don't put this piece of plastic into your mouth".

This is about misleading

[Cracked Pottery (947450)]

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.

Who cares why something is on top?

[Telvin_3d (855514)]

Anyone who uses Google can figure out that the search results are not simply a blind mathematical formula. Google has always said that their aim is to provide the most relevant results. Not the most fair or unbiased. The most relevant, and they fudge the numbers to give people the results they are expecting. There is a reason that Wikipedia always shows up in the top two or three results. As long as the results that Google returns are what people are looking for, I fail to see how they generating those

it's legit

[tomstdenis (446163)]

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:

[pembo13 (770295)]

So Company A needs to sue Company B for trademark infringement, regardless of the advertising medium.

Re:

[JonnyCalcutta (524825)]

Well, to be fair, its not the job of courts or lawyers to tell companies how to perform their jobs or how to avoid falling foul of the law. I'm not saying its correct or justified or not justified or anything - I don't really have an opinion on that right now - but just because your shovelware business model makes it hard to do due diligence doesn't mean you get a free pass.

Re:

[mungtor (306258)]

That's great, but does trademark law make the local paper responsible for checking your ad first?

Re:it's legit

[pnuema (523776)]

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 [pa-newspaper.org] 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.

Why?

[flynt (248848)]

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?

Re:

[kaufmanmoore (930593)]

Suing has been the US business model for at least a decade now.

Re:Tag

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

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?

Re:

[bobetov (448774)]

Did Australia become part of the US when Bush was down there last week?

What, you didn't get the memo?

Re:

[truthsearch (249536)]

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

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

Not reading the summary is the newest business model in the US.

Re:

[truthsearch (249536)]

I need to remind myself to not go for the +1 funnies when the /. crowd is cranky...

At least wait until 3:15EST when we've just come back from our 3rd coffee break. Thanks. :)

Re:Facist Australia

[owlstead (636356)]

That's "fascist Australia", you insensitive clod.