Aussies Sue Over Misleading Google Ads

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."

Aussie Version of False Advertising

Perhaps the company placing the ads of a rival should be sued for false advertising.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

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.

Re:Aussie Version of False Advertising

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.

Re:

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

Apologies,
Peter.

Re:

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...

Re:

Yeah maybe your corrupt-arse government. The ACCC is not a revenue-generating arm.

Re:

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

Oh come on...

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?

Only in America! Err...wait.

Re:

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

Messenger not responsible for the Message

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.

Re:

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 thei

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

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!

Re:

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 t

Re:

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

Re:

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?

Re:Messenger not responsible for the Message

They don't cause the products and services you list are illegal. Cars are not illegal (yet).
Google doesn't advertise cocaine either.

Re:

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 do

I was wondering about that

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 Goo

Re:

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 offenc

Really?

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:

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

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

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:

"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:

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 befo

Re:

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:

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 trader

bait and switch

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:

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 the

Re:

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 o

Re:

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.

U

This may be a good thing...

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 in

That's insane!

It'd be like expecting Slashdot 'editors' to actually read the linked articles before posting the stories. Where would that kind of madness end?

Re:

We can't get the Slashdot 'editors' to read the summaries before posting the stories.

There is a word for that

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

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.

Paid advertising has different rules.

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."

Re:

It's not the definition of "ad agency" that matters. It's the statutory immunities for Internet service providers and newspapers. These are narrow.

See Doctor's Associates vs. QIP Holders [cyberlawonline.com], which turns on the distinction between an "Internet service pro

Google recommends the use of trademarked names

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?

s/wnats/wants

s/steal off/steal from

* This corrections service is offered as a courtesy by Cheeseburger Brown [cheeseburgerbrown.com], author, clown and smart-ass. *

Re:s/wnats/wants

'Now everyones wants to steal from of google' you say?

If you're going to be a smart ass, at least be smart about it. Otherwise, well, you're just being an ass ;)

Re:Policy

"Or they just put a note that they are not responsible for it, and put it in the agreement with the advertiser that the advertiser is responsible."

Clearly they shouldn't be.

If I purchase an ad in a newspaper would the newspaper be liable if I used a competitors name? Does the newspaper have to personaly verify every address and phone number to ensure I am using only my information?

What if I visit a printing company and have scam flyers printed up. Is it up to the printing company to verify?

Just because something happens on the internet doesn't mean it's different from any other media in regards to issues like this.

Re:

The newspaper would be held responsible if it contained porn...

There is usually an editorial policy in place. It has been awhile since I used Google Adwords, but I believe they did have a policy against using trademarked company names for example. They had

Re:

Oh, and I forgot to mention that Google adwords editorial people are supposed to visit the website linked to from the ad and ensure that it satisfies their editorial policy as well. Ads can get rejected if the linked to page does not have enough original c

Re:Policy

"If I purchase an ad in a newspaper would the newspaper be liable if I used a competitors name?"

Actually, yes. A publisher/editor is liable for all the content that appears in the newspaper. (I'm assuming of course, that you're using the competitor's name in a way that is injurious to reputation.)

"Does the newspaper have to personaly verify every address and phone number to ensure I am using only my information?"

Most good news papers have their fact checkers doing EXACTLY that. Again, a publisher/editor is liable for all the content that appears in the newspaper.

"What if I visit a printing company and have scam flyers printed up. Is it up to the printing company to verify?"

No, because unlike the newspaper, the printing company does not -distribute- the flyers. You could print scam stuff till you're blue in the face, you are just not allowed to distribute it.

-- Brian Boyko
-- Former Associate Editor, Daily Texan Newspaper, Austin, TX.
-- M.A. Journalism, University of Texas.

 

Re:

Do you realize that over 70% of the keywords bought on Google and Yahoo and MSN are for copyrighted words?

Wait a minute. When did they start giving copyrights for individual words? That's gonna make writing ANYTHING kinda tricky. I get a picture in my head of a lawyers version of the "Knights of Nee". Can I get the copyright for "the"?.

Re:Policy

Right, after all, a newspaper isn't responsible for people who place misleading classified ads. Google is an advertising carrier, not an advertiser... just like in any advertising case, you don't sue channel 6 because the car dealership put an advert out with a bait and switch photograph on it... it's the person who actually makes the ad that's the culprit. I love how nobody in the world is ACTUALLY responsible for their own actions anymore.

Re:

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 pa

Re:

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 decepti