More Misplaced Google Ad Lawsuits... This Time In Australia
from the everybody-sue-Google-now dept
Just as Google has settled the longstanding keyword trademark lawsuit from American Blinds (and as a new one starts up from American Airlines) in the US, it appears that Google is facing a similar challenge down under. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission is suing Google for supposedly deceptive ad practices, but the details suggest that perhaps the ACCC is a bit confused. It seems to be complaining about a few different things, and it's worth separating those out. First, it appears that an organization named Trading Post, which appears to be an online classifieds site, bought deceptive ads on Google, pretending to be local Australian car dealerships. This can absolutely be seen as trademark infringement if the ads were (as the ACCC accuses) made to look as if they pointed directly to the dealership websites, rather than a Trading Post page. However, the infringement is by Trading Post -- not Google. ACCC is suing both, but it's hard to see why Google should be responsible for the actions of an advertiser.The second complaint is even more bizarre. ACCC claims that Google hasn't done enough to distinguish the top ad slots from the organic search results. That seems like a stretch. Google has always done a good job highlighting and marking the listings that were ads, and you'd have to have pretty bad eyesight not to realize which slots are for ads and which are for organic listings. Nevertheless, ACCC claims that Google does not make this clear and that people would think the sponsored listings were the top organic listings. Of course, it's hard to see how they can back that up, since the sponsored slots are so well marked. However, why let little things like facts get in the way of a chance to sue the almighty Google?
Update: Well, that was fast. It looks like the judge in the case agrees with us, as he wasted no time slapping down the ACCC's arguments as "incomprehensible," "opaque," and "somewhat repetitious."
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
Filed Under: keyword ads, trademarks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Australian Blind, American Airline
sue Google with anything you find.
The older I get the more I loose faith in the human race.
Like the commercial says: "People are stupid."
Oh, yeah, Anonymous Coward, I am not your friend.
I could be if we meet, but until then...first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Australian Blind, American Airline
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Certainly the source placing the ad has the ultimate responsibility for the content they draw up and place. However, the person/company that is actually making the ad viewable has some level of responsibility to ensure that the content is OK.
For example, if I were to take out an ad for "hitman" or some other illegal activities, I would ultimately be responsible for the source of that content and services provided. However, if Google actually ran that ad, then they too bear some responsibilty if anything bad were to happen because of it since they should have had the common sense to determine that this was innappropriate content to post.
If they are going to be in the "ad" business, they should have someone ensuring that the content is acceptible to post before posting.
If the services provided are not illegal but are deceptive, then they should bear no responsibilities for any errors or accuracies of the content (unless of course the error was caused on their part due to incorrect processing of correct data). I would not expect them to verify the accuracy of content provided. If they are not offering design services as part of the ad placement, then they are not responsible if the site is misleading. However, if they are offering design services, then certainly they do bear some responsibility for the asthetic/accuracy of the content.
To say they bear no responsibilities just because they "hosted" the data is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? "It's not my fault, they placed the content"... not to offend anyone, but this is a similar argument used by War Criminals..."It's not our fault, we were just following orders".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is that even illegal?
If I have a web-search company, don't *I* get to decide what criteria I use to search? What if my criteria are "the company which pays me the most money is the most relevant to the searcher, and I will list them first." There's no law about how a search algorithm can work, is there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: the second half of the suit
Clearly that would degrade the quality of the search results and anger many people, but in what way is that illegal? I'm not aware of any laws that prohibit deception alone. They all target some specific type of deception (e.g. fraudulent checks, intentional trademark infringement, etc).
Does Australian law permit you to sue someone because their website doesn't contain what you expect it to contain?
Is there an implied contract that search results will be "good"? Who gets to decide that?
Mike's comments above only counter the claim itself, not the assumption that the claim entails an illegal activity. If google was in fact allowing sponsored ads to show up seamlessly in the results, would that even be illegal? It's deceptive and immoral but I could spend all day coming up with things that are deceptive and immoral that aren't illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Is that even illegal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: the second half of the suit
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Is that even illegal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Slippery slope comment
That concept is in the word of law, and supported by precedent in the first criminal action under the new copyright laws.
The case was decided before the law was even enacted. There is no question what the legislators and judiciary want to establish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]