Australia's ACCC taking on Google

[Calbert]

Im in Australia and the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) is taking on Google for false advertising....of sorts.

THE next time you call up Google, you could encounter the consumer watchdog's logo and a sternly worded Federal Court order telling you the internet giant has broken the law.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission yesterday hit Google and Sensis subsidiary Trading Post with a landmark lawsuit, alleging misleading and deceptive conduct and breaches of the Trade Practices Act over sponsored links on the Google website. The move has angered the internet industry, which said the ACCC should have consulted it first.

The case concerns links listed as search results. The ACCC says consumers are being misled because there is no distinction between "organic" results - which Google sorts - and "sponsored links", or paid advertisements. The case, believed to be a world first, will be watched by other search engine sites.

The ACCC case stems from Google results that came up when searching for Kloster Ford and Charlestown Toyota in 2005. Those business names appeared in the headline for a link to the Trading Post, a competitor for car sales.

The ACCC wants Google to display a website notice, saying it has breached the Trade Practices Act, and to implement a compliance program, likely to cost millions of dollars worldwide

http://www.news.com.au/business/stor...-14334,00.html

[Calbert]

Just found the info on the ACCC website too

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.../itemId/792088

ACCC alleges misleading and deceptive conduct by Trading Post and Google

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted legal proceedings in the Federal Court, Sydney, against Trading Post Australia Pty Ltd, Google Inc, Google Ireland Limited and Google Australia Pty Ltd alleging misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to sponsored links that appeared on the Google website.

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 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.

The ACCC is seeking:

declarations that Trading Post contravened sections 52 and 53(d) of the Act
declarations that Google contravened section 52 of the Act
injunctions restraining Trading Post from representing through sponsored links an association, sponsorship or affiliation with another business where one does not exist
injunctions restraining Google from publishing sponsored links of advertisers representing an association, sponsorship or affiliation where one does not exist
injunctions restraining Google from publishing search results that do not expressly distinguish advertisements from organic search results
orders that Trading Post and Google implement trade practices compliance programs
an order that Google publish a notice on its website outlining the above, and
costs.
The matter has been listed for a directions hearing in the Federal Court, Sydney, on 21 August 2007 before Justice Allsop.

This is the first action of its type globally. Whilst Google has faced court action overseas, particularly in the United States, France and Belgium, this generally has been in relation to trademark use. Although the US anti-trust authority the Federal Trade Commission has examined similar issues, the ACCC understands that it is the first regulatory body to seek legal clarification of Google's conduct from a trade practices perspective.

[KLB]

The ACCC says consumers are being misled because there is no distinction between "organic" results - which Google sorts - and "sponsored links", or paid advertisements.

This is bull. Google's sponsored link block above organic search results is a different color AND says "Sponsored Links" in the upper right hand corner. The ads along the right hand side of search results are also differentiated from the main results by a vertical line and contain the phrase "sponsored links" in the top right as well. If people are concerned about clearer differentiation in terms of accessibility Google could be required to add a title attribute to sponsored links that says "sponsored link". To say, however that there is NO distinction between paid links and organic results is a bold face lie.

[seo ranter]

this case should be thrown out because it has no basis. The second part of the lawsuit should be brought against the company that used its competitor's name in the title and not Google itself......

but stranger things have happened in the court system

[grungee]

The problem for google is section 52 of the act it specifically states

"A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive."

And what that really means is even if it isn't you (Google) that is doing the misleading Google facilitated it by allowing it to happen.

[Small Fry]

The ACCC chooses it's fights carefully. This will be interesting.

[Calbert]

I think the problem is that "The Trading Post" was using "Kloster Ford" and "Charlestown Toyota" in its sponsored links.

Google should have been monitoring it as it is their system.

Thats my understanding anyway