Did Google Let Clickfraud Case Drop, Rather Than Reveal Clickfraud Details?

from the sneaky,-sneaky dept

Tue, Dec 5th 2006 1:40am — Mike Masnick

Nearly three years ago, a man was arrested for trying to blackmail Google over clickfraud. It was an amazingly brazen attempt. The guy had created a software program that he claimed could click ads without detection from Google, and then asked the company for $150,000 to keep him from releasing it. Google invited him to their offices for a meeting, where the guy even joked that "this feels like a blackmail session." Of course, law enforcement listening in one room over felt it actually was blackmail and charged the guy. However, Business Week notes that prosecutors quietly dropped the case two weeks ago, noting that while no one will talk publicly about it, the main reason may have been Google's reluctance to reveal much information for the case. Basically, the article contends that for Google to show that there were damages, they would have to explain how this program could successfully engage in clickfraud. Google may have then been concerned that revealing any of that info could either help other fraudsters, or give more ammo to various advertisers who are intent on suing Google over being charged for ads that are fraudulently clicked. However, on the flip side, the article notes that this admission that Google will let such obvious cases drop may encourage more people to engage in clickfraud, knowing that the risks aren't as high. It's still not clear why Google isn't somewhat more upfront with clickfraud. The company claims they don't want to help those engaged in the practice, but the more secretive they are, the more people question how successful they really are. It seems like there should be some middle ground where they can reveal some details without revealing how to beat their anti-clickfraud attempts.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

11 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2006 @ 5:10am

I don't see how engaging in clickfraud benefits the person committing the fraud. The site posting the ad gets paid, but the "frauder" has little/no recourse to make money except through blackmail - which obviously didn't work very well.

Unless they just plain hate Google. Why not Yahoo? Or better yet MSN?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2006 @ 5:27am
  
  Re:
  it benifits them by exceeding their comatitions limits. click fraud has two outcomes, one the target company's ad limit is exceeded and not shown anymore, or they have to lose large amount of cash for nothing. it is not so much a tool to make the person commiting fraud cash, it is to cost his competor.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2006 @ 5:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    ack I really should have ran that through a spellcheck prior to posting, glad i did it as AC :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike F.M, 5 Dec 2006 @ 5:30am
  
  Benefits
  The main way that clickfraud benefits the person committing the fraud is when they are doing it to a competing company. It will push up the other companie's advertising costs and make their advertising less efficient.
  
  For people with no interest in the business they are carrying such a practice out against there doesn't seem to be any benefit to them.
  
  Then again, how do people benefit from smashing my wing-mirrors off every other weekend? They do it to be awkward
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anon, 5 Dec 2006 @ 5:32am
  
  Re:
  Unless you offer people with Adsense for a fee to increase their revenues dramatically.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dosquatch, 5 Dec 2006 @ 6:37am
  
  Re:
  I don't see how engaging in clickfraud benefits the person committing the fraud.
  1. host an adwords linkfarm
  2. build a botnet to come click in your linkfarm
  3. PROFIT!!1!
  Any questions?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ed, 5 Dec 2006 @ 6:10am

Blackmail
If they were charging the guy with blackmail, then it has nothing to do with how the click fraud scheme was perpetrated. Either you our your source for the story must have misinterpreted facts. Google would not have to reveal anything about clickfraud to prove that the guy was engaging in blackmail. In fact, they don't even have to admit that his idea was valid. Trying to blackmail someone with a bad idea is still just as much of a crime as blackmail with a good idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2006 @ 7:35am

Google's Discretion?
I fail to see why prosecutors should drop the case at Google's discretion. In criminal cases prosecutors can compel witnesses (e.g. Google) to testify whether they want to or not unless they plead that to do so would involve self-incrimination. So was Google ready to plead self-incrimination or are prosecutors now willing to drop valid cases on the instruction of large corporations or was there no crime in the first place or what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dosquatch, 5 Dec 2006 @ 10:00am
  
  Re: Google's Discretion?
  prosecutors now willing to drop valid cases on the instruction of large corporations
  
  Patented, baybeeeee!
  
  Just let 'em try to drop another case this way, I'll sue their snarking pants off.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
|333173|3|_||3, 5 Dec 2006 @ 3:30pm

Google has ways of detecting Linkfarms, any fool should know that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bird, 6 Dec 2006 @ 12:46pm

Clickfraud
Um, Google isn't more serious about fighting clickfraud because it is a "revenue positive" situation for Google.

I love Google as a company, but this is just a business fact. If they keep the whole thing quiet, everyone makes money--well, the advertisers seemingly overpay. However, they must feel the results are worth it, fraud and all, to keep advertising. I know that when we do PPC ads, we see only a small percentage of "buyers", but enough to make it worthwhile. So if the non-buyers are clickfraud or just looky-loos, what is the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]