![Google Google](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/google_64.png)
![Businesses Businesses](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/business_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
![The Almighty Buck The Almighty Buck](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/money_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
Google Sued Over Click Fraud 285
tanveer1979 writes "A seller of online marketing tools has sued Google over click fraud, accusing it of failing to protect clients from spurious clicks over web ads. The suit claims damages of $5 million and is seeking class action status. Sites get money per click from the advertisers. Rival companies of the advertiser may employ people to repeatedly click on the advertisers link on Google costing them large amount of money. Google denied the allegations. From the article: 'We believe the suit is without merit and we will defend ourselves against it vigorously.'" Interesting turnaround.
Not much of a turnaround. (Score:5, Interesting)
Google's customer sues Google for not doing enough.
Re:Not much of a turnaround. (Score:5, Insightful)
Click Defense Inc's business plan:
1. Build software which may or may not prevent click fraud
2.Approach Google about using said software.
3.Google says no thanks.
4.Sue Google for not buying your product (I mean protecting customers)
5.???????
6.Profit!
7.???????
8.Burn in hell for being a scum sucking ass-clown
Re:Not much of a turnaround. (Score:2)
Re:Not much of a turnaround. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not much of a turnaround. (Score:2)
Mod Up: Happy Activity for slashdotters (Score:3, Funny)
DO IT, DO IT NOW!
PS: Has this ever worked on slashdot?
Re:Mod Up: Happy Activity for slashdotters (Score:4, Informative)
While I'm reluctant to post thier website as I don't want to give them more publicity, here [clickdefense.com] is the website of the company sueing (not those listed in google ads).
As I've said below, if you want to screw with them calling thier 877 number would be better as it won't hurt other companies, won't help thier court case, and 877 numbers actually cost more than a click
Re:Not much of a turnaround. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not much of a turnaround. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not much of a turnaround. (Score:5, Funny)
#7 is easy (Score:2)
7. Die a horrible, lingering, humiliating death
#5 remains ambiguous, however, though I suspect it will read something like
5. Get laughed out of court (making SCO's pathetic and laughable case look good in comparison)
Re:Not much of a turnaround. (Score:2)
Re:Not much of a turnaround. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, your competitor keeps going back to the booth and taking your brochure and free samples. Then he throws them away, and goes back for more.
Do you sue the person you hired to work at the booth?
No...you figure out a better way to do it...or you fire the person at the booth and hire a big beefy guy who will make sure it is '1 per customer.' (Yet, he scares away all of the customers)
You know the business model going in...how can you sue?
Re:Not much of a turnaround. (Score:2)
>No...
Yes, of course you do!
If you can prove that the same competitor came in ten times, each time taking with him a shitload of marketing material and your employee still didn't recognize it was the same person and with dishonest intentions at that.
In the meantime, all other people who came to the boot came only once and took two or less brochures with them.
But Supreme Court has already ruled against Google (Score:2)
Deep Pockets (Score:3, Interesting)
Valid issue, No standing. (Score:2, Informative)
However, there is a valid issue here. I would guess that Google is responsible for two things. 1 Notifying customers when they detected a non-trivial amount of fraud. 2 To make a good faith effort to combat this fraud.
Failure to perform either of these could open up Google to some amount of liability.
Re:Valid issue, No standing. (Score:2)
The new economy (Score:3, Insightful)
The lawyers win either way...
wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wait... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
Affiliate programs (Score:2)
These are the answer, I think. Its only an area we have been getting into lately, but its showing a great deal of promise. How it works is like this; you get people to put adverts up on their site, someone clicks on the advert, browses your site, then make a purchase. Not until a purchase is made do advertisers get paid. There is no chance for fraud, unless its someone using stolen credit cards, and then there are defences, chargebacks, and well established legal routes that can be taken. Besides, all onli
Re:Affiliate programs (Score:2)
Re:Affiliate programs (Score:2)
I put an ad on my site to your store. Because of my ad, you get 10 new sales per week. How exactly am I to know that you are getting 10 extra sales per week from the ads on my site? Should I trust that you will report all 10 sales to me and pay me for those 10 sales? What if you want to save some money and only report and pay me for 8 of the 10 sales I generated for you? How would I ever find out? Should I have to go take you to co
Not google's fault (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not google's fault (Score:2, Interesting)
What they want is this: Google actively monitor's for click fraud. Google sues company X for click fraud. Company Y sues Google for similar d
Re:Not google's fault (Score:3, Interesting)
I could see that if Google promised click verification in their contract with the advertisers, those advertisers could sue Google, if they could show the clicks are fraudulent. But I can't sue Google, as I have no financial interest in that transaction.
Let's say I own a house, but the front door isn't metal and the lock isn't
Re:Not google's fault (Score:2)
They don't have to sued McDonald's over this, but the people commiting click fraud... I mean, they sign a contract in which they agree to pay for each hamburger, it's never mentionned that McDonald's will ens
Re:Not google's fault (Score:2)
There are health & safety regulations involving food outlets and the quality of the food you serve. As in laws.
No such thing for clicks.
Re:Not google's fault (Score:2)
There are health & safety regulations involving food outlets and the quality of the food you serve. As in laws.
You're talking about civil vs. legal. Two completely different things. If McDonald's sells me a rotten hamburger, I can sue, and the Dept of Health & Human Svcs. can shut them down. The safety laws have nothing to do with the t
Previous suit will help... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really. Google sued people who were artificially inflating their clicks. Now, someone is saying Google does nothing about click inflation. Who knows the specific of this individual case, but clearly Google has done *something* about click inflation.
what exactly google does to stop fraud? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what exactly google does to stop fraud? (Score:4, Insightful)
The obvious measure would be statistical analysis to see whether some IP addresses are generating an excessive amount of clicks, especially on the same ads.
Re:what exactly google does to stop fraud? (Score:2)
Re:what exactly google does to stop fraud? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:what exactly google does to stop fraud? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd imagine that one trick to combat such would be to "rate" the attractiveness of the ad - i.e. Google staff acting as an "average Joe" looking at the ad and estimating how attractive it is as a guide to how often they'd expect it to be clicked. Any ad getting *much* higher traffic should be looked at more closely to see if: a) they underestimated it; b) it's a "click fraud" target.
Re:what exactly google does to stop fraud? (Score:2)
Re:what exactly google does to stop fraud? (Score:2)
They'll probably have some other stuff too, such as warnings when a specific add is getting an unexpected amount of hits within a certain time period or other such statistical markers, but this is just guessing.
Re:what exactly google does to stop fraud? (Score:2)
It's a funny old world, innit (Score:3, Informative)
Otoh, this'll be even worse for google if Click defense manages to score a win in the courts.
Sneaky (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a publicity stunt.
Click Defense is suing Google to get people to think about click fraud, so they'll buy software from Click Defense to save themselves.
Re:It's a funny old world, innit (Score:5, Insightful)
But if their product works properly, then they should be properly protected, and they wouldn't need to complain to Google that they are getting ripped off. They would just use this technology on themselves, and figure out a way to prevent this fraud (and then sell the technique to others of course). Part of this 'technique' might just be to accurately determine which advertising-supplier has the lowest fraud-rates, etc. But by telling google that they are getting frauded, they are basically admiting their system doesn't work.
Of course, they will claim that they are using their technology to detect the fraud occuring on google's ads... this is, after all, the very point of their product, right? Then other people will buy their product. But 'going public' in this way doesn't make sense. If google cleans up their act in a public and verifiable way, then ClickDefense's product becomes irrelevant. Basically companies won't buy their product/services, because they will be happy knowing that Google is taking care of the situation. They don't need to pay ClickDefense for special knowledge about click-fraud: ClickDefense appears to be making this information public!
If this is a publicity stunt, I think it is a bad one. Frankly it makes ClickDefense's product and services appear rather pointless. I question the long-term viability of this company!
Failing to prevent? (Score:4, Informative)
In other news, Sears is being sued for failing to conduct background checks on the purchasers of air conditioners. It seems foreign assassins have been dropping them out of windows and killing unsuspecting Americans.
Failing to prevent? I mean, come on. This only makes sense if Google signed a contract with the advertisers saying they would implement measures to prevent this.
Re:Failing to prevent? (Score:2)
And to sell his software
Also In Other News... (Score:2)
Note: This is a Pro-Google post... or Sears, depending on that example you're using.
Re:Failing to prevent? (Score:2, Offtopic)
1-800 (Score:4, Insightful)
"Ma' Bell didn't tell all the callers that they could only dial our number if they were going to buy something".
Re:1-800 (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.clickdefense.com/contact.html [clickdefense.com]
Umm What more can Google do? (Score:2, Insightful)
Any system is going to involve an element of fraud if there are human beings involved.
Re:Umm What more can Google do? (Score:2)
That being said, as a consumer, I'm actually _less_ likely to click on an ad for a product that I'm not necessarily in awe of, but is still clutteri
Re:Umm What more can Google do? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
ok, so based on the second link to the previous slashdot story (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1 927212&tid=123 [slashdot.org]),
doesn't that prove in Google's favor that Google *is* taking click fraud seriously? Thus, doesn't that conclusively demonstrate in Google's favor that "Click Defense Inc." is just wrong?
And their main product [clickdefense.com] is to prevent, you guessed it, Click Fraud. Hmmmm, a few minutes ago I didn't know that such a product existed, but now that they've sued google, I do. double hmmmm hmmmm.
Some Executive somewhere: "Google is getting sued because they don't protect us from 'Click Fraud', whatever that is! that could cost us lots of money! What can I do to protect myself? Let me ask Google. Oh, look who is on the sponsored links, clickdefense.com. Oh, their product saves me! yay!"
I smell a large omnivorous rodent of the genus Rattus [wikipedia.org]...
Re:I'm confused... (Score:2)
There's no doubt that someone clicking a dozen times on the same ad over the period of an hour should be backed out. But if a user clicks once on a particular ad today, then does it tomorrow, and the next day, is that click fraud? Google could argue no, the user is just looking to see if the
Cavaet Emptor (Score:2)
I wonder if the next step is suing Google if they let you run an ad that really sucks? Following a (somewhat) logical progression, what about suing if you link to a sucky site? Hell, why not just sue Google if they accept an ad from a company whose product or business plan sucks? Damn it Google, you guys should not have accepted my payments for my "All Pia - All The Time" Pia Zadora streaming site ads! You have a successful business - you should have known better. It's not like Click Fraud would have a reas
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Interesting)
Proof of Fraud on Google's Own Website!!! (Score:5, Funny)
IMHO (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:IMHO (Score:2)
Right! Otherwise M$ would be history. (Score:2)
(Actually I wonder how many lawsuits are started by lawyers when they can find a gulible sucker?)
Re:IMHO (Score:2)
That's not always true. If you run a mall, a train station, or some other place that's open to the public and you have a wooden deck you don't keep maintained such that one of the boards rots and someone breaks an ankle falling through -- you had a legitimate duty to protect the public from reasonably forseeable safety hazards, and you're going to get to pay medical bills (and then some, mayb
Re:IMHO (Score:2)
Hmmm.... if my advertising is costing me money... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm.... if my advertising is costing me money. (Score:2)
Terms of Service (Score:3, Interesting)
The company is a loser because they paid money for an ad that no one but their own people see. They could have saved money by not purchasing the ad to begin with. The IRS loses taxes because the company is providing service to Google, and then from Google to itself, meaning about half of the transaction taxes evaporate.
Re:Terms of Service (Score:2)
It's worse than that, see. Let's say you hire people to click on your competitor's ads without buying their product -- and that these ads are on a website you own, so you get paid when folks click on them! You're draining your competitor's advertising budget, and enriching yourself.
Re:Terms of Service (Score:3, Informative)
It's about people working for companies that click on banner adds of their COMPETITORS. You can do the rest of the math yourself.
Not that it matters much, the whole case is pretty much moot anyway.
One way to advertise... (Score:2)
Marketeer #2: "Let's sue then. The case has no merit, but it will be cheaper than advertising on Google."
TOS problems (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not convinced Google is trying as hard as it should to combat click fraud, and I know how awful their customer service is, but...
When you sign up for AdSense or AdWords, you do agree to their terms of service, including things like (paraphrasing here):
Seriously, Google ads have some great advantages on both sides, but if you go down that path you should not bet more money than you can easily afford to lose. You've basically agreed up front that they're always right - and yeah, maybe you can challenge that in court, but don't forget they have twenty lawyers for every click-fraud investigator. :-)
Two years down the line (Score:2)
Ok This is Just Plain Stupid To Me? (Score:2)
Re:Ok This is Just Plain Stupid To Me? (Score:2)
1. People ought to have fully understood what they were getting into.
2. Google should protect people from rampant clickage.
If an ad would normally get 1 click/day and all of a sudden got 200 or 200,000/day then you can say "wtf?".
That being said most ads on google are tripe anyways. "Blowfish EncRyptor" my ass...
Tom
I don't know... (Score:2)
Fake Chicks (Score:3, Funny)
I am safe from click fraud (Score:3, Funny)
Restitution unrealistic... (Score:2, Interesting)
If the customer is already benefitting from reduced rates to compensate for a known issue, I don't see how a court could fairly award the complaintant.
If googles customers want to pursue this, they will just force advertising rates higher, screwing no one but themselves. Especially, since google is under no onus of having to provide the same rates to all customers. They can impliment a "variable fee" for the
Got extortion? (Score:5, Funny)
This seems like a rather obvious case of extortion if you ask me. I can picture the "negotiations" now.
Click Defense: Buy our software
Google: No thanks, we're good
Click Defense: Buy it or we'll file a lawsuit and make lots of public statements saying you are allowing your customers to be ripped off (reminding them that people beleive anything they read on the IntArweb)
Google: Pack Sand
Click Defense: You'll regret this, it'll now cost you 10x as much as our shitty software
Why don't we hold companies and individuals criminally resposible for this kinds of abuse of the legal system?
Re:Got extortion? (Score:2)
Re:Got extortion? (Score:2)
Interestingly, ClickDefense.com no longer seems to be showing up as a sposored link for that search.
Could Google have removed the link to protect them from click fraud?
Re:Got extortion? (Score:2)
They've got to know that coverage of their silly suit is going to cause a lot of this sort of traffic, and they've probably set their AdWords daily spending limit low enough that it took them out of circulation for the day already, or put them way down in the bid list so they do
Who's at fault? (Score:2)
I tried to give them some solutions (Score:3, Insightful)
I once asked them, if I click 5 times on an ad, does that get charged 5 times? They said they couldn't say. All they have to do is stop charging someone for the same IP in the same day lets say.
Sure, they would loose 15-20% (guesstimate) of clicks right? But wouldn't the service be better value therefore people would spend more?
Thats all folks.
Re:I tried to give them some solutions (Score:2, Funny)
They were being polite. I suspect that what they actually meant was something like this
We have our methods, thanks. We have absolutely nothing to gain and potentially a lot to lose by revealing them to a complete non-entity who isn't a customer and who probably couldn't even afford to put an ad in his local paper. Please go away before we invoice you for the 30 seconds of our time that you have ju
I know Google has an $80 billion market cap... (Score:2)
Maybe this was a publicity stunt, seeing as how all of the data you plan to present at trial is ostensibly derived from your own product, and you don't expect to win (except by perhaps being bought out by someone).
Or maybe this was a scam from the start, a
Google is Public; Make Yourself Rich! (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Buy Google stock.
2. Perform random searches on Google.
3. Click every ad.
4. Google makes $$$ for those clicks.
5. Stock price goes to $300, $400,
6. Profit!
It's hard to imaging any other company in which you can invest and, with so little effort, produce revenue for them. Hell, you could be doing something else at the same time! I bet while watching "Dancing with the Stars" you could flow several grand into Google's bank account. If even a small percentage of Google shareholders do the same, it's just like printing money.
Google does try hard... (Score:3, Informative)
Suing is easy. Winning is hard. (Score:2)
I'm sure Google has a line item in their budget for legal defense against this sort of nonsense. That's the cost of doing business when you are a high profile and successful company.
A flawed business model (Score:5, Interesting)
Other advertising media use demographic polls to determine the approximate number of eyes and ears on their material. This is a fair means by which the value of advertising can be measured. It means the media will have to pay a reliable source to collect this information and all that but it's not as exploitable as hiring clickers in the 3rd world country to run up the advertising costs of a competitor.
There's still room for fraud and falsification but the target for such accusation is much easier to define and because of this, they [the poll people] are more likely to protect themselves with auditing and tracking measures should they be accused of, say, siding with Yahoo! or Google when reporting numbers. It would more or less absolve the advertiser and the medium from this problem and actually simplifies the business model considerably.
The internet advertisers should take a lesson from the rest of the world and simply go with what works. People will cheat every chance they get. It's clear and obvious. So you just have to find ways to reduce that risk.
Google attacked under the spirit of communism (Score:2)
That is what is happening to Google now. They have built a successful business by creating something people voluntarily pay for in a free and open society. Now, the jealous nit wits who hate success are coming out of the woodwork to attack Google. I'd rather that these communists spent their energy creating rival competitive products in a free
Bunch of Ass Clowns (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.clickdefense.com/terms_of_services.htm
"RISK. YOUR ACCOUNT AND THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED TO YOU ON AN "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS. Click Defense, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ITS DISTRIBUTORS, ADVERTISERS AND SUPPLIERS, DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARISING BY LAW OR OTHERWISE, WITH RESPECT TO YOUR ACCOUNT AND THE SERVICE (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT)."
First, you can't disclaim expressed warranties. Also kind of hypocritical that they disclaim all responsibility for their product and turns around and sue Googles for what amounts to a warranty issue.
Very unprofessional. Obviously a bunch of dumbasses.
Click fraud is being In Violation (Score:2)
Re:Wrong defendant? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmmm.... (Score:3, Interesting)
google does not employ any click patterns analysis, and fraud you have to both expect, plan, pay for, and fight against; mostly by yourself.
I had a one week adwords saga [bloghi.com]. The bottom line was that if fraud exists, and the claim is right they do react, but one has to act on it, not wait for the PPC carrier to discover it.
Then since this core flaw exists, great media-opportunist companies appear and sue google in order to gain media exposure. this kind of news should become no news soon enough!
Re:Hmmmmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have not had an automatic credit like that in a very long time, but my logs are indicative of click fraud. You can write to Google and get a credit, but, for some ad campaigns, it's just not worth it -- well over 90% of the clicks can be fraudulent. The time invested to keep getting credits may out weigh the value of the campaign. YMMV.
Re:Hmmmmm.... (Score:3, Interesting)
multilple requests from the same IP could be fraud, or it could be a couple of people behind a NAT looking at the same page it's also possible you site had some weird-assed IE only shit that didn't render properly in mozilla or even some pathetic ASP page on a windows server kept timing out and people kept trying to reload the corrupted page. What might it be? If your adveritsing in a magazine, you'll have to assume the the advert you've paid for will only be lo
Re:Hmmmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with your analysis, but, if you read my other posting, I think you'll see that I have evidence of real click fraud.
Re:Hmmmmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, there are times when, right at midnight, there is a sudden and dramatic rise in the number of queries which would produce my ad, and my CTR goes to 100%. They all come from the a block of IP addresses owned by one of my competitors. Sometimes they come somewhat more scattered in the IP address space, but a few whois searches reveals that all of the offending IPs are related (through business ventures, or have the same registered mailing address, etc.)
They click the ad until my daily budget is drained, and then my ad stops for the day.
Re:Why sue Google over this? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why sue Google over this? (Score:2)
Google said they'd charge per click on the links. They did that.
Google never said the clicks would be legitimate.
Tom
Re:Why sue Google over this? (Score:2, Interesting)