Australian Federal Court Goes After Google - I back Google
November 26th, 2007
Google lawyers will go before the Australian Federal Court in June 2008 to defend allegations made by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), over alleged misleading and deceptive conduct.
The ACCC is alleging that Trading Post contravened sections 52 and 53(d) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in 2005 when the business names “Kloster Ford” and “Charlestown Toyota” appeared in the title of Google sponsored links. These links went to Trading Post’s website.
Kloster Ford and Charlestown Toyota are Newcastle car dealerships who compete against Trading Post in automotive sales.
The ACCC is also alleging that Google, by causing the Kloster Ford and Charlestown Toyota links to be published on its website, engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of section 52 of the Act.
Further, the ACCC is alleging that Google, by failing to adequately distinguish sponsored links from “organic” search results, has engaged and continues to engage in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of section 52 of the Act.
Last Friday, Australia’s Federal Court set a June 23 2008 hearing date for the case bought by the ACCC.
Google has denied the allegations. “The ACCC’s claims against Google are entirely without merit, and we will continue to defend against them vigorously,” a Google lawyer said in a statement last Friday.
The ACCC case centers on Trading Post Australia. The commission alleges misleading and deceptive conduct by Trading Post and Google stemming from advertising that appeared on Google’s Web site in 2005.
================== COMMENT ===============
I really don’t think the ACCC have a leg to stand on in terms of the differentiation of paid links verses organic results.
If I were one of the Google lawyers I would trot out hundreds of examples from print, radio and television advertising where paid placement is a lot less obvious that the Google sponsored links.
Ever noticed those stories in newspapers with “advertorial ” in small type near the top border? What about “cash for comment” on Australian radio? Was John Laws or anyone else actually charged with anything? Was 2UE taken to court by the ACCC? No.
As far as the use of company names in the ads is concerned I’m on Google’s side.
If you set up your Google Adwords account to broad match on Ford or Toyota AND use the {KeyWord:Default Title} code in the title of your Adwords ad, then guess what, the company names will appear in the Adwords ads even if you don’t have them in the Adwords ads title.
Unless you understand Google Adwords, you probably won’t understand the benefits of using the {KeyWord} variable.
For the Google lawyers to explain this to a judge and jury will be a big ask. But that’s why they get the big bucks 
Categories: Google |
