Google Considers 'Severe' Penalties For Allegedly Deceptive Chrome Extension Maker

Engadget reports: The Wall Street Journal has learned that Google is considering "severe penalties" against internet giant IAC (InterActive Corp) over allegedly deceptive practices in its Chrome extensions. The browser extras reportedly promise features that never materialize, point users toward additional ads, or even trick users into installing them.

A Google audit reportedly found that some of IAC's voting ads not only didn't take users to voter info, but installed the Ask.com toolbar and changed users' default home pages. IAC kept running those ads even after Google told the company to stop.

The full range of potential punishments isn't clear, but Google is considering banning them, according to WSJ sources and leaked documents

Anti-competitive? WAT.

[sleschdott]

Ftom TFA: "IAC’s Valerie Combs, however, accused Google of being anti-competitive."

Well, that's a euphemism that doesn't even try to compare apples to oranges - it compares apples to an Aurora Borealis.

Re: Anti-competitive? WAT.

[MrNaz]

Yea also since when are we OK with private companies having the power to punish?

Re:

[DrMrLordX]

My thoughts exactly . . .

Re: Anti-competitive? WAT.

[bn-7bc]

Well if the punishment in question is being remived frome crome/android web store Iâ(TM)m fine with it, itâ(TM)s a store owners right to carry/or not carry any oroduct for any reason ( onless opligated to include/ exclude products at oart of tfrancising agreements etc)

Since we came up with ethics, right & wrong

[raymorris]

I'd say right about the time we came up with concept of ethical behavior is when we figured out you shouldn't work with people who are doing wrong.

I'm really super okay with Walmart, or Bob's Sandwich Shop, deciding they aren't going to have products in their stores from manufacturers who decieve and otherwise screw over the customer. Really, really good with that.

That's precisely what Google is doing here - IAC put extensions in the Chrome shop that mislead customers. Google told them to stop putting dec

Re:

[The MAZZTer]

Not surprising, Twitter is being accused of the same thing when users of a specific political group aren't given special treatment to violate Twitter's rules without penalty. Twitter already is giving them special treatment that normal users don't get. I don't know where IAC is aligned but it hardly matters, this behavior is unacceptable regardless. I would be surprised if we didn't see this strategy consistently used by bad faith actors in the future: Purposefully violate website ToS and then claim oppress

Stop!

[mhotchin]

Stop! Or I shall say "Stop!" again!

Re:

[The New Guy 2.0]

Google can ban whoever they want from the Chrome browser... and this is the reason we stopped using Ask.com...

Re:

[dargaud]

I came here in order to read something like that. Yours gave me a good chuckle. The only appropriate penalty for the worst offenders is a Tomahawk missile...

Info?

[spitzak]

I did RTFA and it has little more info. It would help a bit to know:

What did the extensions claim to do?

What is a "voting ad" and "voter info"?

Internet Giant?

[zenlessyank]

Never heard of them.

Re:Internet Giant?

[Some Guy]

They are a holding company who own a lot of brands/sites you would have heard of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

I worked for a subsidiary (briefly) and took many showers to remove the grime.

Yeah right.

[Cryptimus]

Because we all know what a big crusader Google is when it comes to "deceptive practices".

This is posturing of the most ironic sort.

Severe Penalties

[fahrbot-bot]

Google Considers 'Severe' Penalties ...

All their search queries will be redirected to Bing or, for repeat offenders, Yahoo!

Powerless

[NotEmmanuelGoldstein]

... kept running those ads ...

If the USA had useful online-privacy laws and truth-in-advertising laws, the FTC could be involved. Google/Alphabet could have pulled the IAC's plug-in immediately and subjected any new version to an extensive review: They didn't want to spend their money protecting their subscribers. It seems IAC is another corporation demanding "everyone owes me a profit", which conflicts with Google's desire to avoid enabling such malware. The most Google can do, is refuse to deal with IAC. But IAC will create a new subsidiary offering the same malware and the process will begin anew.

Yeah, Like They Cleaned Up Android LOL!

[BrendaEM]

Android is a cesspool. I will never use Chrome for anything.

Re:

[The New Guy 2.0]

The idea of "open" and "app store" never mixed well...

Re:

[CaptAubrey]

Android Chrome, feel free to run Firefox on Android.

Re:

[CaptAubrey]

Let me try this again as /. removed my formatting. Android does not equate to Chrome, free feel to run Firefox on Android.

Google Considers 'Severe' Penalties ...

[Bu11etmagnet]

A sternly worded letter is in order.

One scumbag company vs another scumbag???

[RotateLeftByte]

Talk about pots and kettles?
Just don't use anything from either company.

Google early want to ban them

[sectokia]

The problem is they bring in nearly $1b revenue for google So they wonâ(TM)t ban them

Permanent ban and on affiliates

[rickb928]

Anyone who plants ask.com on your machine deserves a ban. Ask.com exists only to exploit browsers, with no discernable advantage, merely abusive harvesting.