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]

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

Not differentiating?

[ucblockhead]

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

Sponsored Links

[pembo13]

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.

Give Me a Break

[cromar]

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

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

[MrGHemp]

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?

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.

ACCC should

[jointm1k]

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

Two separate issues

[johndiii]

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?

Re:Tag

[truthsearch]

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

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.

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:What, the "Sponsered Links" section?

[Blue Stone]

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:it's legit

[pembo13]

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

Re:it's legit

[mungtor]

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

Re:what next

[tha_mink]

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:it's legit

[JonnyCalcutta]

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.

Why?

[flynt]

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:what next

[sydsavage]

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:popularity != relevance

[jafiwam]

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.

Re:I hate to say it

[CodeBuster]

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 believing that the five (5) pages or so are part of the regular magazine articles and content. This is why many magazine publishers require the advertisers to print in block lettering at the top of each page "advertising section" or some such so that they, the magazine publishers, are not held accountable for claims or statements made in the "advertising section" which appears to be part of the regular magazine content and not an advertisement. This whole trend, of embedding advertising in the television show or using dancing characters in the bottom right corner of your screen or faking a real magazine article to cloak your add, is part of a new and even more pernicious invasion of advertisers into our lives and they complain about AdBlock or ScriptBlocker while at the same time never hesitating to employ the most underhanded tactics in their quest for eyeballs. They declared war on the public's senses a long time ago so any sort of DVR, AdBlock, or ScriptBlocker is fair play on the part of the consumer.

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

[ShatteredArm]

I guess you should drop pretty much every commercial product you've ever used, because guess what? They all advertise! Since when was advertising a way of betraying the public good? Since when was it akin to selling eyeballs?

So, you want google to provide their service without making money from advertising... So, who's going to donate to them? Nobody. Running a free search engine without advertising is simply not a viable enterprise if they're interested in not going bankrupt.

This sounds like a great deal of ideological grandstanding. If you think it's possible to profitably run a search engine without advertising, have at it. Maybe I'll see you next time I volunteer at the soup kitchen.

Re:what next

[bit01]

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, use more prominent boxes, use explanatory phrases like "these links are paid advertisements", even put ad's on a separate page.

Google makes their advertising links similar to the search results because it's profitable. A large part of the reason why it's profitable is because the majority of users can't tell the difference. Marketers love fraud because it's profitable. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to put up with it.

---

"Advertising supported" just means you're paying twice over, once in time to watch/avoid the ad and twice in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad.

Re:what next

[pipingguy]

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 unintrusive but clearly marked - should they be blinking so people notice them more as advertising?

Re:what next

[JacksBrokenCode]

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?