Slashdot Log In
Aussies Sue Over Misleading Google Ads
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:43 PM
from the common-carrier-or-policeman dept.
from the common-carrier-or-policeman dept.
eldavojohn writes "Google is the target of another lawsuit — this time over whether or not they are responsible for the content that advertisers put up on their site. The case involves an instance where Google displayed ads for two automotive dealerships in Australia, yet the links led users to the site of a commercial rival. The company that placed the ads in 2005 avoided a lawsuit by settling with Australian regulators, who are now going after Google for not policing the ads. If this suit holds up it will set a precedent for very heavy ad monitoring responsibility on the part of all search engines, not just Google."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Aussie Version of False Advertising (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not arguing the ACCC is right. But they're certainly not after the money.
Parent
Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising (Score:5, Informative)
See http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId
They are mainly seeking injuctions, declarations, and order. The only monetary request is for costs. You can argue that costs can be inflated, but this is still not a "fine them $x million" lawsuit that you see elsewhere in the world. The ACCC is looking for a change in behaviour from Google and, if proven right, money to cover the ACCC's expenses.
After reading that URL, I think you'll agree that the ACCC is in the wrong. But can we dispense with the "they're after the money" posts, please? The ACCC is requesting something similar to a newspaper retraction, not a fine. If someone finds information that they're seeking a fine, please post it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Apologies,
Peter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with "deep pockets", it has to do with being responsible for content on your web site. This is not the same as responsibility for things such as forum posts, it's not a question of "editorial rights" or similar speech issues. This is an issue of allowing clearly false and deceptive advertising. A company should not be able absolve itself of this type of responsibility.
Oh come on... (Score:2, Insightful)
Stupid lawsuits? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Only in America! Err...wait.
Dumb convicts*, don't even know which part of the world they're in... ;p
not that the Yanks* are much better, at least the frogs* have reedeming features within a train ride or or even driving distance. to be pompous and patronising to the face of the rest of you guys costs a small fortune, and takes hours on a long haul flight.
*note, I'm English, therefore I have a licence to call the Aussies convicts, Americans Yanks and generally insult the French. In return they get to call me a Pom, Limey or gener
Messenger not responsible for the Message (Score:5, Funny)
I am not a Google fanboi but this lawsuit is BS. Google cannot police the content of the ads. It is just a medium - akin to a billboard or a newspaper.
How many times have we seen informercials on TV and the web promising extraordinary "male enhancement"? My wife keeps pointing me to them all the time (I guess she is telling me something).
Anyways, they never work. They are all bogus but I have never been able to bring lawsuits against the TV stations or the websites.
I can sue the advertiser not the medium.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they should have to police the ads per se, but if they know that the ad is deceptive (such as if someone brings it to their attention), they should refuse to air it/show it, and be held accountable.
True, the main responsible party is the advertiser, but I don't think that entirely lets google or the tv station off the hook.
More generally....it's not all black and white.
Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message (Score:5, Funny)
I would not recommend these products at all!
As someone who has battled with literacy problems my entire life I thought this was exactly what I was looking for! However, I bought a tonne of these pills and I still cannot read my male... plus, for some strange reason, I now have difficulty putting my trousers on in the morning!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message (Score:4, Informative)
Google doesn't advertise cocaine either.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You firmly believe that you could never bring a lawsuit against a TV station for something that was advertised on it? IANAL, but such an action (falsely advertising one company then redirecting to another) is illegal. If they were totally not liable (at least in the US), then TV stations could accept ads from drug dealers, prostitutes, bookies, chop-shops, cock fighters, doctors who loosely write prescriptions, Chinese toothpaste manufacturers, etc. Yet, for some reason, they don't ...
"I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through." I think it may possible be because persons placing such adds may have a limited ability to pay for the adds since their stupid asses would likely be working in the prison laundry for a dollar a day shortly after the add came out.
I was wondering about that (Score:2)
I was wondering if it would do any good to complain to Google or whether this is considered fair business practice. I thought of even letting the carpet cleaning company know what was happening, but since they did not even seem to have a website to begin with I doubt they would have even known what I was talking
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I believe it's making a false representation, both to the reader and to the newspaper, magazine or web hosting company.
If it's an attempt to obtain money by a false and fraudulent representation, though, then things get stickier: that's a criminal offence in Canada, and I suspect in Australia too.
American Heritage Dictionary: fraud (frôd) n.
1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
--dave
Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that it isn't a good idea for all countries to pursue, but Australia's actions don't automatically effect the rest of the world
Re: (Score:2)
No, Australia did not effect the rest of the world. That was done long ago.
However their actions can affect any online entity which does business in Australia, and that includes Google.
Mislead (Score:5, Funny)
Tiresome (Score:5, Insightful)
If a society is interested in remaining healthy and prosperous, groups going after innocent parties like this need to be outright censored (if private) or disbanded (if governmental) or completely overhauled with the top people fired. They are actively doing more harm than good and should be treated like the social cancers they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Contrib
Re: (Score:2)
The company distributing the advertisements are only connected to them in "secondary ways" now?
Re: (Score:2)
bait and switch (Score:3, Interesting)
I emailed the company and told them I found this misleading and they were very nice about it, saying they did not want to be accused of bait-and-switch and would contact their marketing department about this. I don't expect all companies to be so honest.
Re: (Score:2)
It's against Google's rules to advertise a "free" product or service then bring customers to a landing page with no actual free offers. Of course, it's not very well enforced.
But more than that, it's stupid. They're paying for every click and attracting people who aren't actually interested in buying anything. The whole p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, Google told me that they do not take responsibility for the veracity of AdWords ads. Here's their exact words:
Thank you for your email. The AdWords program provides a venue for companies to advertise their services. We value customer service and hope our advertisers will provide quality care to our users. However, we are
Re: (Score:2)
Um... They gave you a meaningless but 'sincere' apology. They weren't being honest, they were telling you what you wanted to hear so you'd get the hell off of the phone and taking up time that could be used on a paying customer.
This may be a good thing... (Score:2)
That's insane! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There is a word for that (Score:2)
google has already lost in france (Score:5, Informative)
Louis Vuitton sued Google, and Google lost. Badly.
This case is a rehash of that concept, except they have also gone a step further and claimed that Google's entire business model of displaying several paid results before the organic search results is misleading too- since they use the exact same font/size/format.. Do you think your parents or a newbie online knows that the tiny "ads by google" waaaaay over on the right hand side of the screen means that any link to the left of it for 5 inches is a paid ad?
No. They dont. People (not slashdot crowd) think that the first results are the "best" results. They have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA those are ads. None. The BBC did a study last year that showed 12 percent or less of a random sampling of web surfers could point out where the advertisements where on a typical search result page.
That folks, is why this suit is really scaring Google. Hell- even a national news story that mentioned in black and white "Hey guys, you see all this stuff on the right hand side of the screen, and on the top? Those are all paid advertisements, even though they dont look like it" could kill the whole scam.
Google has made a business model out of buying the commercial television time right after the evening's national news show, and hiring a look-alike model with a copycat set to run a second newscast, except pitching paid advertisements. Sure, a very few people might realize that it isn't the real news, but enough people will be fooled that they'll make shitloads of money.
Paid advertising has different rules. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ad agencies like Google are going to have to address this. The law on this varies by country, but given that Google regulates the style, content, and format of ads, then charges for them, they're clearly not just a passive conduit. More significantly, Google acts as an ad agency when it places ads on the web sites of others. It determines where, when, and how often the ad runs. That's acting as an ad agency. Ad agencies are routinely held liable in false advertising lawsuits. Sites on which Google ads run probably qualify for a safe harbor, but Google, acting as an ad agency placing ads on the sites of others, does not.
It's not clear how much liability an Internet ad agency has for content, but failure to take basic steps to identify the advertiser running the ad looks like negligence.
Here's a summary of US false advertising federal law. [agtlawyers.com] "The FTC can pursue the advertiser, its agency, and their employees. It can fine, and enjoin, them. If the advertiser or agency is a subsidiary of another company, the FTC can go after the parent. The FTC can even impose liability for false advertising on a merged successor."
Similar principles prevail in Australian law [accc.gov.au]. "The Commission does not necessarily expect (advertising) agencies to independently check the technical claims made about a product, but if they are complicit in an obviously misleading presentation, and fine print is used to obscure an offer's restrictions, then difficulties start to arise."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not the definition of "ad agency" that matters. It's the statutory immunities for Internet service providers and newspapers. These are narrow.
See Doctor's Associates vs. QIP Holders [cyberlawonline.com], which turns on the distinction between an "Internet service provider" and an "Internet content provider" in the Communications Decency Act. Content providers are liable; service providers are not. ""Information content provider" is defined as "any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the crea
Google recommends the use of trademarked names (Score:4, Interesting)
Guess what some of the suggested adwords were?
You get a thousand points if you guessed "names of your competitors." Several obviously trademarked names showed up in their list.
I found this to be quite interesting in that Google was practically *inviting* me to use these trademarked names to drive clicks to my site.
Tempting? Yes...but in the end, not tempted enough to violate Google's own policies which prohibit this practice.
It did get me to wondering, though: Can I be held liable for false advertising or in violation of Google's TOS if I follow Google's keyword recommendations?
s/wnats/wants (Score:2)
* This corrections service is offered as a courtesy by Cheeseburger Brown [cheeseburgerbrown.com], author, clown and smart-ass. *
Re:s/wnats/wants (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to be a smart ass, at least be smart about it. Otherwise, well, you're just being an ass
Parent
Re:Policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly they shouldn't be.
If I purchase an ad in a newspaper would the newspaper be liable if I used a competitors name? Does the newspaper have to personaly verify every address and phone number to ensure I am using only my information?
What if I visit a printing company and have scam flyers printed up. Is it up to the printing company to verify?
Just because something happens on the internet doesn't mean it's different from any other media in regards to issues like this.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
There is usually an editorial policy in place. It has been awhile since I used Google Adwords, but I believe they did have a policy against using trademarked company names for example. They had an automated system that would scan for trademarked names, forbidden words ("online poker"), and that type stuff, then it had to undergo review by a real person.
A good question is if you were to complain, would Google respond or just blow you off.
I came a
Re: (Score:2)
This goes back to if Google is allowing ads to link to competitors, is this condoned or do their editors suck?
Re:Policy (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, yes. A publisher/editor is liable for all the content that appears in the newspaper. (I'm assuming of course, that you're using the competitor's name in a way that is injurious to reputation.)
"Does the newspaper have to personaly verify every address and phone number to ensure I am using only my information?"
Most good news papers have their fact checkers doing EXACTLY that. Again, a publisher/editor is liable for all the content that appears in the newspaper.
"What if I visit a printing company and have scam flyers printed up. Is it up to the printing company to verify?"
No, because unlike the newspaper, the printing company does not -distribute- the flyers. You could print scam stuff till you're blue in the face, you are just not allowed to distribute it.
-- Brian Boyko
-- Former Associate Editor, Daily Texan Newspaper, Austin, TX.
-- M.A. Journalism, University of Texas.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wait a minute. When did they start giving copyrights for individual words? That's gonna make writing ANYTHING kinda tricky. I get a picture in my head of a lawyers version of the "Knights of Nee". Can I get the copyright for "the"?.
Re:Policy (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the second part of this lawsuit states that Google's entire business model of placing advertising in the first 3 slots of any search result -yet making it so subtly seperated that most people are unaware that those results are paid for- constitutes deceptive trade practices.
lets face it folks, even if you go to google's own FAQ section on how to make more money with adsense, 100% of the methods they tell webmasters to use are basically "blend in the colors and the font so that the
Re: (Score:2)