Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Advertising The Courts Technology

Google Sues Dodgy Advertisers 71

Posted by samzenpus
from the we-said-don't-be-evil dept.
angry tapir writes "Google is at its wit's end dealing with illegal sellers of prescription drugs that market medicines on its ad network, so it has decided to take some of these allegedly rogue advertisers to court. Rogue prescription drug sellers have increased in number and become more sophisticated in their dealings, and 'a small percentage' of them have been able to dodge Google's efforts to block them from running ads on its network, according to the company."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Sues Dodgy Advertisers

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday September 23, 2010 @07:09AM (#33673908) Journal

    How do I order?

    Talk to Dr. William E. Morrow of Layton, Utah who signed for thousands of prescriptions [cnn.com] that two of Kyle Rootsaert's pharmacies filled. From that article:

    CNN's Special Investigations Unit first examined Rootsaert and Roots Pharmacy, the company he owns in American Fork, in 2008. CNN Correspondent Drew Griffin ordered the antidepressant Prozac over the internet without a doctor's prescription, and the pills were delivered by overnight express the following day.

    The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and FBI are very very interested in all of this and as the article notes, Google is quick to show they're on the government's side regarding these pharmacies. Google faces very low risk (alleging breach of AdWords contracts allowing others to back out of contracts) while reducing its liability exposure by way of this lawsuit if any of the 49 "John Doe" owned sites face criminal investigation.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 23, 2010 @07:10AM (#33673914)

    Yeah.. they should give back the money to the people they're suing.

    Because with any other service providers, of any type, they give back money when the customer violates the terms of service. Oh wait.. they don't. They give you the boot, maybe take you to court, and keep the money.

    Maybe you didn't think anything but "ZOMG GOOGLE! MUST BASH THEM!" If only we could put down the rabid trolls...

  • google ads (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jumpinp (1144189) on Thursday September 23, 2010 @07:25AM (#33673982)
    Google's ads have been pointless for a long time. I don't understand how they make as much revenue as they do with ads that no one, or at least not anyone I know clicking on them. The ads are mostly spam and scams. Their text format is bad too. I rarely click on ads but those that I do are usualy non flash banners, or I'll unknowingly read a paid for review. A few key word lines of text doesn't have the click me afpeal that oither ad options do. It is about time they cleaned up their advertisers and made them more relevent.
  • Re:google ads (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 23, 2010 @07:40AM (#33674100)

    Google's ads have been pointless for a long time.

    That maybe your opinion, but it's not the fact.

    I don't understand how they make as much revenue as they do with ads that no one, or at least not anyone I know clicking on them.

    Because people are clicking on them, and they are anything but pointless and have been for a long time. Your denial doesn't change this fact.

    he ads are mostly spam and scams.

    That's such a dumb statement that it doesn't even pass the smell test.

    Their text format is bad too.

    You lost me there.

    or I'll unknowingly read a paid for review.

    Wait a second... you're clicking on ADVERTISEMENT and you're complaining that what you end up reading was PAID FOR?! /boggle

    A few key word lines of text doesn't have the click me afpeal that oither ad options do. It is about time they cleaned up their advertisers and made them more relevent.

    Again, you're clearly not either A) the norm or B) an expert on this subject. You're claiming your personal preference/opinion as fact despite your own boggled admission that it couldn't be true because they're making hand-over-fist in money. And you also claim they haven't been trying to 'clean up' their ads which is also a nice fabricated attempted at miss-information. Google has every business reason (and has said so many times in the past) to make sure ads are as effective as possible and as 'clean' as possible (in terms of fake/illegal/scams). If people stop trusting their system, they stop making money and Google has been working endlessly to make sure their ads are relevant and trustworthy.

    That, of course, doesn't mean they're going to be effective for the advertiser.

    I've tried Google ads for my company several times without seeing much effect. The problem could be what we're trying to sell isn't something that works well with PPC or it could be issues we have with our site and making conversions.

    Regardless, as much as I ignore Sponsored Links on search engines, there are plenty of times I give them a quick scan when looking for a specific product.

    Just a counter anecdotal to your own.

  • Re:google ads (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 23, 2010 @08:26AM (#33674508)

    Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population.

In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982

Working...