Comments for Google Sued for Sponsored Search Ads

Google Sued for Sponsored Search Ads

2007-09-10T17:36:03Z

Google is being sued in an Australian court for "potentially misleading consumers," reports News.com.au. At issue are the sponsored ad spots Google sells at the top of some search results above the first organic result. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) alleges that Google has encouraged deceptive practices among businesses by selling the advertising in that top position on its search results pages, while telling consumers that its results are organic.

Specifically, the ACCC names online car dealership Trading Post, which purchased sponsored ads on Google in 2005 for search results relating to searches for the names of other New South Wales car dealerships. The ACCC argues that by using the name of those dealerships in their ads, the Trading Post links appeared to point to the official dealership web sites or implied an affiliation that did not exist. The ACCC alleges that this is a breach of Australia's Trade Practices Law.

]]> The judge in the case was not overly impressed with the ACCC's arguments, calling their case "opaque and repetitious." He adjourned the proceedings until October 4th pending clarification of the involvement of Google subsidiaries, Google Australia and Google Ireland, which were also named in the suit.

While I don't find Google's sponsored listings -- which are clearly marked -- overly deceptive, I do find it unfair that companies with deeper pockets can essentially bid for the top placement using keyword text that makes their ad appear to link to their competitor's web site.

That would be like 411 setting up a similar bid-based advertising system, so that when you called information and asked for the number for Domino's Pizza, you had to hear the information for Pizza Hut first. Worse, you wouldn't even be told that it was Pizza Hut's number you were hearing.

Comment from Glen Barnes on 2007-09-10

2007-09-10T19:33:40Z

I don't agree that this is wrong. When you read an article in a magazine about a product you will quite often find competitors ads on the opposite page. I see this as no different as the organic search results are still pure (like the editorial) but there are ads placed around it.

I also disagree with the 411 comment, the user pays to use 411 and expects that they will get the number straight away. With Google it is free and you expect that there will be ads on the top and sides of the results page. Also I believe Free-411 does actual insert ads for competitors into the 411 calls but that is expectation when you call the number. It is 'free' in terms of money but you do have to listen to some ads for similar products.

Comment from Josh Catone on 2007-09-10

2007-09-10T19:48:55Z

Glen, I think you're missing a key part of what I said. Having ads on your competitor's search results isn't wrong (as I said, I don't find Google's sponsored results deceptive). What I am uncomfortable with is a competitor deceptively marking their ad so that it appears to link to the official site for the company.

It would be like Read/WriteWeb paying for an add for searches for "Facebook" that was titled "Facebook News" and had text "Get all the latest news about Facebook." (Or something along those lines.)

That sort of ad would imply to searches that they were clicking on a link to Facebook's official company news site and would be very deceptive and something that I don't think should be allowed on Google.

Also, I can tell you from experience that most of the Internet novices I know -- such as my parents -- do not distinguish between paid search and organic search results. Generally this is not a big deal, but when paid results use deceptive ad text, like what I described above, it affects the searcher negatively.

Comment from Robert on 2007-09-10

2007-09-10T23:00:06Z

There are several problems here. Traditionally it has been the advertisers responsibility for the content of their ad, and if someone placed a deceptive ad in a newspaper or magzine in the past, then likely the authorities would take action against the advertiser (not the publisher). However with the growth in, and nature of, online adverting, it has become very difficult, or impossible for the authorities to enforce rules against deceptive advertising. Google states that it is the advertiser who is responsible for the content of their ad. But with the nature of the google system, and how consumers use, and view, the google service, should then google be required to take greater responsibility for the content of ads displayed on their service?

Now I don't know enough about the case refered to in Australia. However, I do know that Google is knowingly profiting from ads that should not be allowed to run. I have a case in the UK, whereby a competitor has ads that do not even meet Google's own ad criteria. Despite making official complaints (more than 5 times) to Google, their acknowledgement, and their confirmation to me that this advertisers ads do NOT meet Google's own guidelines, they are still continuing to show, and google continues to profit from them. This case has been going on for more than 6 months now, and google have simply refused to do anything about it.

Comment from Garlin II on 2007-09-10

2007-09-11T00:16:34Z

How does this differ from when GEICO sued Google a few years ago? I believe Google won that suit.

Comment from sarki on 2007-09-11

2007-09-11T07:29:09Z

This is not the first time when somebody sued Google.
And will not be the last :)

Comment from Simon on 2007-09-11

2007-09-11T22:34:38Z

Whatever you might like to think, millions of people trust Google.

I have problems when searches like "firefox" or "spybot" come up with sponsored links to site names like firefox-new or www-spyboot. Maybe the software is legitimate, but I don't want to visit these sites to find out, let alone download or install anything.

All of us who build websites know how dumb users can be in the heat of the moment. It really doesn't help when Google (or other search engines) doesn't act as the custodian it's perceived to be.

Comment from Charles on 2007-09-11

2007-09-12T02:12:17Z

What I am uncomfortable with is a competitor deceptively marking their ad so that it appears to link to the official site for the company.

Isn't this why the sponsored listings (and organic for that matter) display the destination url aswell (in green)? And yes, you can set this to be whatever you like on paid listings, but it is against the TOS to display a url for a competitiors site here for the very reason that it would be misleading.

The example of a paid listing for RRW pitching Facebook news isn't a good one either because it is absolutely legit for someone to advertise their Facebook News site if indeed that's what they do...ie, that's not at all misleading.

Also keep in mind that you can't *choose* to appear at the top of the organic results. As I understand it these spots are reserved for ads Google determines as most relevant based on their 'quality score' which assesses the bid as well as keywords/ad copy and landing page relevance. You can certainly bid to be the number one paid listing, but that doesn't necessarily mean your ad will appear at the top of the main results column, often it just gets you top spot on the right.