Google Sued Over Deceptive Search Results 246
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:what next (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Because our legal system is broken. Very, very broken.
I for one have lost faith in modern jurisprudence. The simplest of cases take years to resolve. Big corporations routinely beat unmonied opponents into submission. Bar associations have complete monopolies over the legal services. Rhetoric and hysteria dominate court decisions, and the sway that the media have over judges and juries is such that in a lot of cases, in effect
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you have against truth in advertising? If a link is sponsored, it should say so.
It's not about that at all though. It's about Adwords and how Google allows someone to purchase adwords that are trademarked by other entities. Which by the way is the same thing that millions of domain registrars have been doing for years. If I register your trademark for something, anything really, then it should be me who suffers the consequences and not Google for allowing me to do it. Really, how can Google KNOW that some car dealership in East Bumblefuck exists while trying to process their billi
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose I had a free service which pretended doing something good but consisted of smashing your head several times with a baseball bat?
But it's not that at all. It's 100% totally different expect for the words "free service". That's a mildly retarded metaphor in fact. Giving biased search results vs. getting physically assaulted is just retarded and you should try harder. Google's results do not shape my behaviour without me knowing it. It's why I go there in the first place. Plus, the article was about them selling adwords that were trademarked by another company. So you metaphor should have been something like Go-Daddy allowing p
A case of you can sue for any reason. (Score:2)
This is right up with the cups at Atlanta Bread that have the waring, "Hot drinks served hot".
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
If I ever find out I've been taking the second-best medicine so my doctor can get free trips, yes, I would sue.
Re: (Score:2)
"Second best medicine" would be defined how? Hmm, maybe large placebo controlled studies. Too bad they exist for relatively few medications and determining "best" would be pretty difficult. Maybe "a bit better" or "about the same". Usually it's a treatment vs. no treatment. Perhaps the sugar pill was better.
Even in that case
What, the "Sponsered Links" section? (Score:2)
Re:What, the "Sponsered Links" section? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What, the "Sponsered Links" section? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Ahhh! Now I see the problem. Google misspelled "sponsored". You'd think they could afford a spell checker.
Re:What, the "Sponsered Links" section? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how it's wrong at all, so I wouldn't stop doing it until the law made me either.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's an clear or accurate summary at all. There is no accusation that Google altered any search result links.
The crux of the complaint is the plaintiff's claim that Google's page design does not differentiate paid advertising from bona fide search results clearly enough.
I think they might have something of a point in the case of in-line sponsored
Re: (Score:2)
The complaint isn't stating that adwords or sponsored links is deceptive. It's talking about how in this instance it's being abused.
Yes and no. From the article:
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
They're just trying to get on the Google-bashing train early so they can say "we were doing it before it was popular."
Honestly, I kinda like it. It sure beats the Google dick sucking that we get every time they announce some new desktop-app-in-the-browser crap.
-matthew
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA...
popularity != relevance (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. According to the law, unfair and deceptive trade practices are about the perceptions and understanding of common public. You cannot say something that, while technically true, is likely to mislead or deceive members of the public of "average" intelligence and perceptiveness.
Google needs to put the sponsored results in red/blue flashing text on a green/yellow flashing background and a Ja
Sponsored Links (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't know. I block all ads which includes Google sponsored links, you insensitive clod!
Give Me a Break (Score:4, Insightful)
Really... you can't tell the difference? (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when does a website legally have to tell you what is an isn't an ad?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Google was created in a garage. Its value rested in the fact that it was not selling eyeballs, its creation rested in the progression of the capacity of the tools, not that it was a particularly clever or wonderful. It's not as big a task as it's made out to be, and it's not a big deal to support the efforts of a couple of guys to do it again if they can't find a way to fund their
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 gr
I hate to say it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Flash Ads only (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
ACCC should (Score:2, Insightful)
turn off "SafeSearch filtering". That ought to give a more representative result on what consumers want.
Two separate issues (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
It appears that there were links with the names of the complaining dealerships in the Sponsored Links
Re: (Score:2)
It would be my contention that under US law (this is in Australia under UK common law) such a use is NOT anywhere near a violation of trademark. Sponsored links that come up when a trademark is searched are completely different that altering the search results such
Lowest common denominator (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have a hard time believing that Wikipedia paid Google a bazillion dollars to get at the top of the search page.
And yes, the Sponsored Links where in a separate column with a different background color, as usual.
I don't get it...this part of the deal seems a non-issue.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You do realize that doing a search on google and looking for the phrase "sponsored links" is a pretty dumb way to test how easy it is to recognize sponsored links right? If you're consciously aware of the distinction and looking for it, it in no way simulates actual usage.
Sure, even as a novice user, if you submit a search to google, and when you look at the results, you're consciously trying to pick out which links are sponsored links, it's easy. But that's not how people operate. When you search on
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, people might get confused by the top sponsered links. If they get more experience with the tool, that might change. If it doesn't change, they should apply for a Darwin award.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is a GOOD THING(tm) as it's the difference between a culture of deception (marketing) and a culture of virtue. Of course, as you astutely point out, a culture of virtue leaves society looking 98% dumb and ugly.
Re: (Score:2)
For example: clicking a sponsored link for Apple products that directs you to a Microsoft sales page.
This is about misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Who cares why something is on top? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's because everybody links Wikipedia for just about everything. The cumulative PageRank of a billion links from blogs and commmentaries and rants has got to have made Wikipedia into some kind of monster.
it's legit (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The pharmacy should make sure you aren't going to commit suicide.
The car dealership should make sure you won't drive drunk and go off a bridge like Ted Kennedy.
The computer store should make sure you won't let your PC become a zombie spammer.
Slashdot should make sure you aren't going to use an account to troll.
Talk about unfair burdens!
Leave Google alone. Saying they aren't a legitimate business is absu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:it's legit (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
E.g. a google for [say] Pepsi brings links that *say* Pepsi but instead go to Coke when you click on them.
Is this really the case? I just did a search for the trade-marked term "HP-UX" and the sponsored links section did not contain the word "HP-UX" anywhere in that portion of the results. Even when the results do contain the search term, it does not appear to misrepresent the link as being the official website for that term.
Seems to me that what Google is doing is returning search results that are related to the given search terms but are not misrepresented as being the official site. So, to continue with
Re: (Score:2)
The complaint ISN'T that google does this for every company, or that Google did it on purpose even (note that doesn't limit liability).
Re: (Score:2)
the first issue about Sponsored Links that say Sponsored Link is silly.
the second one about letting others use competitors brand names in search results is a little more complicated. But the fault should be on the people using those keywords and any fines google receives should be passed on to the offending sites.
If i registered a blog on blogspot and wrote hate speach on it. is google at fault? it is there
Re: (Score:2)
Should I be able to open stores called K-Mart just because I feel like it? Then why should google be able to run pay-per-click ads using trademarked names they WEREN'T GIVEN PERMISSION FOR.
As for the "hate speech" line
Re: (Score:2)
Kirby
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not they sell something has nothing to do with using a trademark. They can use it within the bounds of the law.
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 (whic
Must make life easier for morons (Score:2)
Hope the get a jury award ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I've run adwords campaigns before, very useful things. The best thing about them is that they're cheap as chips, and they're instant.
If it's just one company hogging the sponsored links with fakes, then it's more than likely this is a tiny portion of their advertising budget, so probably doesn't stretch to much... have you actually seen the keywords involved here... they wouldn't exactly constitute a major investment on the part of the advertiser... (well, not until about an hour ago anyway)
Like Microsoft buying Linux adwords? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If TFA is right then i think i can sense some wrongness in this. Selling adwords that points to some business or market to their competitors is a bit shady. I always cringe when i search for something Linux and for example Microsoft shows up.
There's a difference between Microsoft saying "we are Linux" and Microsoft saying "if you're interested in Linux, you should check out Windows."
:P
I think the cringing you're feeling is from other aspects of Microsoft's campaign against Linux.
Because sponsored links (Score:2)
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but they signed one with your government. It's called a corporate charter.
Strange.. (Score:2)
On what basis do these idiots think Google has some contract with me or anyone else _except_ their advertisers to show any kind of search result in any kind of order at all?
Google's not perfect, but I call BS on this story (Score:2, Interesting)
No one here calls out Google sell outs. (Score:2)
All it gets you is spammed commercial businesses.
All the hype that google gets is undeserved.
There is no more clean uncommercial information on google search. It's all been tainted.
This is what you get for believing using links on websites as indicators of quality results.
Time to find something better. Turn off that firefox auto google search too while your at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tag (Score:5, Funny)
Did Australia become part of the US when Bush was down there last week?
Re: (Score:2)
What, you didn't get the memo?
Re: (Score:2)
Next week we're renaming it South Hawaii.
Re: (Score:2)
We've been the 51st state since 1966
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least wait until 3:15EST when we've just come back from our 3rd coffee break. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer "fudgoogle" as a tag for nonsense like this. Lawsuits like this are created to FUD Google's business model and services. Other search engines do the same and worse.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Facist Australia (Score:4, Funny)