Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Government The Courts News

Aussies Sue Over Misleading Google Ads 158

Posted by kdawson 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This discussion has been archived.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.

Aussies Sue Over Misleading Google Ads More

Aussies Sue Over Misleading Google Ads

Comments Filter:

  • Aussie Version of False Advertising (Score:3, Insightful)

    by no_pets ( 881013 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:49PM (#19840301)
    Perhaps the company placing the ads of a rival should be sued for false advertising.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by russotto ( 537200 )
      RTFS. The company placing the ads has already settled. This is just a case of going after the deep pockets.
      • Yeah, this is like suing a television network because a commercial "for" company X on their channel had a telephone number that actually rang their competitor Y.

      • Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)

        by harves ( 122617 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @02:52PM (#19841147)
        I don't understand the point behind your "deep pockets" reference. This isn't some upset businessman suing Google. This is the consumer-protection arm of the Australian Government. They don't keep the money. There is no benefit to any employees, or indeed to the government itself. The ACCC is doing only what it believes is its job.

        I'm not arguing the ACCC is right. But they're certainly not after the money.

        • I'm not arguing the ACCC is right. But they're certainly not after the money.
          No, but they are probably after the prestige. If they take down Google, it instantly elevates their visibility. At the very least, it gives pretty big bragging rights to the individuals at the ACCC who work on the case.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by rtb61 ( 674572 )
            No the real target is, low entry point cheap marketing is no excuse for not monitoring the quality of your marketing promotions.

            Google greatly increases it's profit margin by not spending any where enough money upon ensuring the quality of their adds or the companies they are promoting or the products they are promoting adhere to requirements of mi minimum marketing standards.

            SO they are tackling the largest and as a result most abusive of fair marketing principles, in cheap entry level marketing compan

        • If they don't keep the money, then who are you saying does? It's not like it'll magically disappear.

          • Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising (Score:5, Informative)

            by harves ( 122617 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @04:03PM (#19841987)
            I would love it if articles would link to the sites of the people involved.

            See http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/ 792088/fromItemId/142 [accc.gov.au]

            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.
            • Well, thank you for answering my question, although the implication that I was one of the "they're after the money" posts was a bit unnecessary. I really was wondering where the aforementioned money would go. :P

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by harves ( 122617 )
                You're right. I was too harsh. Yours just seemed the best response, so I chose to reply to it.

                Apologies,
                Peter.
        • But perhaps they retain "outside counsel" (Lawyers) who would benefit hugely, and be in a good position to hire the ACCC guys who sign the papers.
          • That's called a "kickback" in the good old USA, and to some, it's a way of life. I don't want to be them if they get counter sued and lose...
        • I think that getting Google to do their job for them, would probably count as a 'benefit'.

          Not to mention a certain deep pocketed organization may pay their new consumer-protection officers more then the government.

      • This is just a case of going after the deep pockets.

        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.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ZachMG ( 1122511 )
      Im gunna go with false advertising as well, not googles fualt
    • If this case is decided against Google, where does it end? Is an ISP responsible for any websites it hosts? How about any email that get's passed through it's servers? After all, I get at least 5 scam emails per week - I could get rich suing ISPs in no time! If that is true, are phone companies responsible for what people say on the phone? Are caterers responsible for bad movies they might have catered to?

  • Oh come on... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by The13thSin ( 1092867 )
    I mean, I'm not one to say "oh the poor multibillion dollar company", but this is bordering on ridiculous: Is Google really that evil or are the 5 or so lawsuits I've been hearing about in just 2 weeks against them maybe a bit much?

  • Stupid lawsuits? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:53PM (#19840369)
    Only in America! Err...wait.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Shh. You'll upset the world view of people who like to criticize the US' world view.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by VJ42 ( 860241 ) *

      Only in America! Err...wait.

      Dumb convicts*, don't even know which part of the world they're in...
      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. ;p


      *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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by spun ( 1352 )
        Okay pommy, does pom mean Prisoner of Her/His Majesty, Prisoner of Mother England, short for pomegranate, or rhyming slang for tommy?

  • Messenger not responsible for the Message (Score:5, Funny)

    by prakslash ( 681585 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:53PM (#19840387)

    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.

    • 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 ... So there's some lev

      • Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message (Score:4, Informative)

        by klingens ( 147173 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @02:33PM (#19840901)
        They don't cause the products and services you list are illegal. Cars are not illegal (yet).
        Google doesn't advertise cocaine either.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by pjt33 ( 739471 )
          You're right. It had never occurred to me, but I thought I'd check because I've seen some pretty weird eBay sponsored links in Google results.
      • If they advertised for those the cops might like that television station, doing half their job for them...

      • 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.

      • That's brilliant! It makes perfect sense -- because a TV station which airs one ad at a time and charges thousands of dollars for each ad is able to actually monitor their content, then anybody displaying ads should be able to police them! Who cares if they display millions of ads and only charge a few dollars for each one, they're serving it up so they should have hordes of people verifying every ad before it's allowed to go live. Google should've called Australia and talked to both car dealers to ensur

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tpv ( 155309 )

          Who cares if they display millions of ads and only charge a few dollars for each one, they're serving it up so they should have hordes of people verifying every ad before it's allowed to go live

          I'm sure Google will make a very similar argument if this goes to court, but the fact of the matter is, Google's business model is under their own control. They could, in theory, choose to charge thousands of dollars for each ad, and the TV station could charge a few dollars. (Neither company would make money in tha

          • Those are good points, but I guess I still feel that it's closer to the retailer end of your Aspirin analogy than the pharmaceutical end -- a manufacturer may only sell each bottle for a dollar or so, but they sell so many and they only have to test their product in batches in order to reasonably assure safety.

            For Google selling ads that even a mom-and-pop car dealer can afford to buy there's just no way they can reasonably screen those ads without charging a significant fee (much more than $10 imo) to cove

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by catbutt ( 469582 )
      Well if it were up to me, there *should* be a certain responsibility on the part of the tv station (as well as Google).

      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: (Score:1)

      by ch-chuck ( 9622 )
      well, puffery [mises.org] in advertising is perfectly legal

    • Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message (Score:5, Funny)

      by D-Cypell ( 446534 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @02:46PM (#19841085)
      How many times have we seen informercials on TV and the web promising extraordinary "male enhancement"?

      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!
    • If the court finds that Google is required to police the content in advertisements, it would open up the door for a whole slew of liability lawsuits against Google. It's quite likely they would strongly consider pulling out of that market altogether, as the cost to combat the lawyers that would come running would likely be quite large.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Goaway ( 82658 )
        They would pull out of the market that is making them all their money? Yeah, I can see that happening.

        • They would pull out of the market that is making them all their money?
          If that market stops making them money, or starts costing them money, why wouldn't they?
          • Because it's making them virtually all of their money. Without advertising, Google would be bankrupted very quickly.

            It wont happen.
            • So they can either go bankrupt without their advertising program, or they can go bankrupt with their advertising program not making them enough money to pay their army of lawyers to deal with a never-ending flood of lawsuits. I guess I don't see the advantage of one situation over the other.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Goaway ( 82658 )
                They're not gonna go bankrupt from having to hire a bunch of people to check through their ads before running them, man.
  • Just yesterday my wife was referred by a friend to a particular carpet cleaner, and when she searched for it online she got several ads with that company's name but they took her to different sites.

    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

    • Just yesterday my wife was referred by a friend to a particular carpet cleaner, and when she searched for it online she got several ads with that company's name but they took her to different sites.

      I would think this would be trademark infringement or something like that. Shame on the Australian regulators for settling.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by davecb ( 6526 ) *

      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

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by luke_francis2000 ( 1127085 )

        The piece of law that they are sueing under is a thing called the Trade Practices Act 1974 [austlii.edu.au]. Section 52 is a very broad section of that act that prohibits Misleading and Deceptive conduct. [austlii.edu.au]

        If you read the press release on the ACCC website [accc.gov.au], they are also sueing the Trading Post, which traditionally was a paper you could buy advertising items for sale. As a guess, they are looking to clean up the online advertising business to discourage behaviour that would lead to people being mislead into buying from t

  • Really? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:54PM (#19840399) Journal

    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."
    Only in Australia... Right?

    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)

      by Minwee ( 522556 )

      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)

    by halcyon1234 ( 834388 ) <halcyon1234@hotmail.com> on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:55PM (#19840409) Journal
    The Aussies are just pissed off because they didn't read the advertiser's fine print that stated "Results not typical. Not all users will experience the same gain in length or width. Some users may not notice any change at all."

  • Tiresome (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GnarlyDoug ( 1109205 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:58PM (#19840459)
    I'm getting very tired of hearing about groups not just going after responsible parties, but anybody connected, even in secondary ways, to the activities. Whenever you see that kind of behavior, you know there are ulterior motives behind it. This behavior can be more damaging to society than the original fraud. It results in massive burdens on companies, deep regulations, intricate and gameable legal systems, higher prices, barriers to entry for new companies, and finally corruption and and power through selective enforcement.

    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)

      by db32 ( 862117 )
      "I would like to solve this problem for less than the cost of a bullet" seems to apply here more than anywhere else it has been used.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by telso ( 924323 )
      The overly-litigious society can also cause burdens on individuals. Just over a year ago, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled [www.cbc.ca] in Childs v. Desormeaux [wikipedia.org] that a host who serves alcohol at a party at their house is not responsible if someone drinks too much before coming to the party, doesn't drink at the party, and drives home and injures someone or destroys something. (A lot of people were saying the woman suing the family who held the party only did so because the guy who paralysed her had no money.)

      Contrib

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Goaway ( 82658 )
      I'm getting very tired of hearing about groups not just going after responsible parties, but anybody connected, even in secondary ways, to the activities.

      The company distributing the advertisements are only connected to them in "secondary ways" now?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jrumney ( 197329 )
      I'm not sure that holding an advertising company responsible for the content of ads they display is any different than holding someone responsible for receiving stolen goods. If we let it go on unpunished, then it provides a conduit for unscrupulous traders who may have other ways of evading the law themselves.
    • You have to kind of understand our ACCC. They're good, very good consumer advocates -- but they also contain professional paranoids of the shoe-banging sort (I've actually seen one of their execs banging a shoe in a high-level committee meeting -- it wasn't pretty, but it was wildly entertaining -- fortunately an adjoining office caught fire and we all had to adjourn via the fire escape.).

      Erk. I just imagined Kruschev wrapped in an Australian flag. I think I'll go have my hypothalectomy now...

  • bait and switch (Score:3, Interesting)

    by spyrochaete ( 707033 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @02:00PM (#19840481) Homepage Journal
    I had a similar experience recently. I was looking for a utility to restore an accidentally deleted file so I searched Google for "windows freeware undelete". The first result displayed was an AdWords listing entitled "Windows Undelete Freeware". I clicked it and looked all over the site but the company offered only paid undelete services.

    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:1, Offtopic)

      by flyingfsck ( 986395 )
      FreeDOS has undelete built in.

    • The first result displayed was an AdWords listing entitled "Windows Undelete Freeware". I clicked it and looked all over the site but the company offered only paid undelete services.

      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)

        by spyrochaete ( 707033 )

        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.

        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:1)

        by Astadar ( 591470 )
        True they have to pay for the click, but it's entirely likely that after hitting several of these free-but-not-free offerings a user will resign themselves to having to pay for the software/service and become a customer.

        You can pay for a lot of clicks with even one $20 sale.

        • True they have to pay for the click, but it's entirely likely that after hitting several of these free-but-not-free offerings a user will resign themselves to having to pay for the software/service and become a customer.

          But do you really want resigned / frustrated users as customers? A sizable portion of these will "buy" the free-but-not-free offering, but then turn around and contest the charge on the credit card, on the grounds that the ad said free (and in case of doubt, the Cc company always sides with customer...), thus turning that free-but-not-free offering into a free-but-not-free-but-again-free offering.

          You can pay for a lot of clicks with even one $20 sale.

          But then, it doesn't take many contested charges (and associated fines...) to sink an otherwise profitable sca

    • 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.

      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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ucla74 ( 1093323 )
      Interestingly, I just replicated this "test." I typed "free undelete utility" into my Google search box in Firefox. The first result (shaded, and clearly marked as a "sponsored link" was pctools.com, for their trialware product "File Recovery." However, the trial version, as plainly indicated on the resulting page http://www.pctools.com/file-recover/?ref=google_fr &gclid=CMu0-tmMo40CFQlQWAodI1nZ6g [pctools.com] does NOT recover deleted files.
      • I probably should have mentioned that I default to google.ca and the adwords ad I saw (which was indeed visibly shaded) directed me to a Canadian company.
  • This could be good if it means web sites and advertising suppliers become responsible for the veracity of their advertisers. Most advertisers already function as a type of censor, not willing to represent viewpoints in opposition to the status quo (for instance when was the last time you saw a TV or banner ad advocating marijuana legalization, paper trails at voting machines, or encouraging people to go out and protest at the local park?) Instead of making moral judgements maybe they could make factual one

  • That's insane! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @02:06PM (#19840577) Homepage
    It'd be like expecting Slashdot 'editors' to actually read the linked articles before posting the stories. Where would that kind of madness end?
  • the second part 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 ads look exactly like the rest of your p

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by girltard ( 806055 )
      sorry about the formatting:

      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

      • 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.
        So labeling them "sponsored links" is still deception? If people don't want to read what they click, that's not the ad carrier's problem.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You must be kidding... I had never noticted this and you actually made me go waist 5 minutes of my life trying to verify that the first 3 results were paid adds. After finding the first 3 results were exactly what was searched for and in many cases not-for-profit organizations I realized you were referring to the adds at the top of the page. It never even occured to me to look at these as part of the search results.

      Come on, they look nothing like a search result; they're enclosed in a colored box, they're l
  • It is called "fraud". False advertising is addressed in laws in every state or country, so it is a good thing they are taken to task over this.

  • google has already lost in france (Score:5, Informative)

    by girltard ( 806055 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @02:52PM (#19841141)
    google was making TONS of money selling ads that appeared whenever anyone typed in Louis Vuitton. There are hundreds of pirate manufacturers selling fake Louis Vuitton purses, and they were making a mint on Google.

    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.
    • Well said above, i'd also like to mention that the ACCC's actions here are consistent with their actions in other mediums, namely radio.

      Five years or so ago the ACCC sued a famous Australian talk-back radio radio personalities for not having a clear seperation between his comments and advertising. e.g. whenever a caller rang to comment about the telephone system he would always be defending one telephone company who happebned to be a sponsor, it was considered deceptive and misleading. (search for John Laws

  • Paid advertising has different rules. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @03:05PM (#19841305) Homepage

    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."

  • Whenever I bring up the BBC study showing that only 12 percent of a randomly selected population in a study 12 months ago were able to "spot the ads" when shown a search engine result page, I always get people chiming in saying "well it's obvious to me what are ads, if you can't tell the difference then that's your own fault"

    Even when I say 100 times that the ads are not targeted at slashdot or computer savvy people- they are targeted at older adults with disposable income who haven't been on the web for a

  • Google recommends the use of trademarked names (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pongo000 ( 97357 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @06:33PM (#19843675)
    I run an automotive performance tuning business, and use Google AdWords (with mixed success) to advertise. Google recently introduced a new feature where they recommend keywords to use based upon, I assume, traffic profiles with similar businesses.

    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?
  • There is a second issue being reported and this is the issues of getting genuine search results vs. getting results from paid advertising, and googles failure to identify the paid ads clearly. In Oz if an article in a newspaper etc. is sponsored by someone like a company, then the article must state that fact.
  • I once made a search for "serious magic" (it's a video editing app for chroma-keying).

    The first result on Google (paid result) was:

    Serious Magic
    www.FXhome.com/CompositeLab Special Effects On Your Desktop Simple Powerful Software. Try Now!

    This kind of result implies that FXHome are the makers of Serious Magic, while in fact they are a competitor! (Serious Magic was bought by Adobe, btw).

    This practice is unethical, to say the least.

    Google is an ad agency in disguise, not a "common carrier". They check if

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close