Google's 'top spot for sale' - Google goes to court.

[grantmoney]

This could become interesting

GOOGLE has been selling off the top rankings on its search engine results to commercial partners, rather than sorting them by relevance as it claims to, a Sydney court has heard.

The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) is taking world-first legal action in the Federal Court against Google Inc over allegedly deceptive conduct related to sponsored links on its websites.

The story is here

[dturnbull]

Man, that is a load of bull.

The article makes you think they're selling the #1 spot etc. But they're actually talking about making the sponsored results not differentiated enough from the organic results.

"The consumer watchdog alleges Google does not do enough to differentiate "organic" search results - those ranked by relevance - from sponsored links which appear at the top of the results page."

Just sounds like stupid bitchin' to me. Google hasn't done anything wrong. They're basically being sued because retards can't read the writing that says "Sponsored Links".

[ExpertForumGuy]

I wanna sue google.

It'll be like:
Chris Knight [not my real name] has filed a lawsuit against Google, because nobody knows WTF is going on.

due to the tremendous amount of confusion, Chris has went completely insane from Google's search engine ranking randomness. So we believe that Chris deserves a google sponsored vacation to the Bahamas, plus 30,000 dollars given to him solely dedicated to adwords.

thanks :]

[Nora]

Even if that did happen (which I doubt).. would they really be able to sue Google? Its their website.. on directories people also place paying sites on top.. why should Google be any different?

[godmode]

The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) has bunch of noobs. They expect google to run Google.com as Non-profit organisation and still able to list on NYSE with $500+ stock value and pay shareholders dividends every year.

They prolly need to hire ME before filing that case.

According to Google TOS,

17. Advertisements

17.1 Some of the Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions. These advertisements may be targeted to the content of information stored on the Services, queries made through the Services or other information.

17.2 The manner, mode and extent of advertising by Google on the Services are subject to change without specific notice to you.

17.3 In consideration for Google granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Google may place such advertising on the Services.

Someone wake up thos idiots! lol

[Thogek]

I suppose that if McDonalds can be sued over one American's inability/unwillingness to consider the typical heat of a cup of coffee in managing her drive past the order window, Google can also be sued for failing to providing a free service absent of full support for mentally lazy private individuals to avoid any need or responsibility to employ basic thought.

In order to make such a lawsuit stick, do the defendants have to demonstrate that they themselves are so mentally deficient as to claim to be victims of disability dicrimination? ("They won't cater to my lazy-brained stupidity, so I'm suin'!")

[webengtech]

Yes I too want to sue Google.. just because they have so much money and I want some of it.

[Notting]

Actually I agree that the sponsored listing are not differentiated enough. For a while they had no coloured background and i didn't notice they were ads at first!

[Dylan Tovey]

The ACCC got rapped over the knuckles for this case in the court's this week - the court is making them write out summaries of all their arguments and submissions because they say that they are so repetitive and opaque that they simply do not understand what they are on about.

Dylan

[Velocity]

Originally Posted by dturnbull

Just sounds like stupid bitchin' to me. Google hasn't done anything wrong. They're basically being sued because retards can't read the writing that says "Sponsored Links".

Actually it is not very visible.
On my wide screen monitor it is all the way to the right and on LCD the color difference is barely visible.

[sitefever]

Who cares if they label sponsored listings in bright yellow or if they don't label them at all? Google owns Google.... if you don't like it, use another search engine.

Would you like someone sueing you because they can't figure out which of your blog posts are paid reviews and which ones aren't? If it's your site you should be able to do whatever you want!

[sweetfunny]

GOOGLE has been selling off the top rankings...

Fail right there, they are not rankings. Also it's not discrimination as anyone has a chance at paying for the Sponsored Ad and being featured there.

[godmode]

Originally Posted by Dylan Tovey

The ACCC got rapped over the knuckles for this case in the court's this week - the court is making them write out summaries of all their arguments and submissions because they say that they are so repetitive and opaque that they simply do not understand what they are on about.

Dylan

Thats what i said, they need a LAWYER like me instead hiring bunch of idiots who forgot to read Google TOS (check my post above)

no wonder they got screwed, i already predicted that

[soniqhost.com]

If there is money to be made, people will sue and google has money. When youtube was owned by its founders who had little or no money no one sued them for hosting copyrighted videos but once google bought them Viacom comes around with a Billion dollar lawsuit. You'll see google getting sued more often as it becomes more successful and profitable.

[Zanswer]

I never heard of ACCC before, but now I do. Is this on Marketing 101?

[godmode]

Originally Posted by Zanswer

I never heard of ACCC before, but now I do. Is this on Marketing 101?

That was the whole motive behind suing google. Get free pubiclity. Now a days any idiot can start a blog accuse google for anything he likes, get links to his blog. Its so easy these days!

[grantmoney]

Originally Posted by Zanswer

I never heard of ACCC before, but now I do. Is this on Marketing 101?

They're pretty well know in Australia when it comes to broadband issues. They're usually responsible for keeping Telstra in-line when it comes to their pricing for third party broadband suppliers.

I don't think they stand a chance, but who knows. If they do manage to make some headway, it can only lead to a positive outcome. With the recent vertical search stuff, how long until a majority of the top 10 positions point towards Google sites (maps/news/books/etc).

[simey]

they are not rankings. Also it's not discrimination as anyone has a chance at paying for the Sponsored Ad and being featured there.

>they are rankings to a certain extent, since googles 'quality score' dealy comes into play, right?

[kkeiith]

I recently came across CPC text advertising on 123greetings.com, called Sponsored Links.
Advertising is quite simple here as there are no keywords to target, just select your target audience from the card categories. Their Birthday section worked for my clients with retail business.
As a leader in ecard business, this site enjoys a huge traffic. With the shopping season ahead, bids on Google would go north. I guess new CPC text advertising options like in 123greetings is a better option to reach targeted audiences on festive occasions.

[Muneeb2Good]

Thats an interesting story from Australia indeed, Considering that Google doesn't always display paid links above organic search results even when paid links exist might be causing confusion. Google has a separate algorithm for determining which, if any, of the paid links are eligible to be displayed above the organic search results. Since Google will now be generating more revenue from these top spots, this case will be interesting to follow.