Google accused of deception in selling AdSense keyword ads

Sounds like this guy knew what he was doing, having been involved in law suits previously with advertisers. Probably looking for anything he could in order to file suit against Google. He didnt even file a complaint with Google over the alleged misunderstanding. Far as I can see it, this guy is a leech. Its like buying a house, you NEVER leave any field blank! This case should be dismissed, based on pure negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

This suit was brought by a California class action mill that has sued Google several times before. You can see the original Complaint filed in the case here:

http://www.Techno...ogle.pdf

What a crock!

Sounds like this guy knew what he was doing, having been involved in law suits previously with advertisers. Probably looking for anything he could in order to file suit against Google. He didnt even file a complaint with Google over the alleged misunderstanding. Far as I can see it, this guy is a leech. Its like buying a house, you NEVER leave any field blank! This case should be dismissed, based on pure negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

One should never jump to conclusions in the absence of evidence.

In this case, unless you've experience working with Pay-per-Click advertsing, you've no basis for your judgement.

Based on having such experiences, I can, without fear of being in error, tell you that the PPC market is rife with problems, with the one here mentioned being but one of many, and, one of the milder ones.

PPC publishers have a vested interest in 1) generating the maximum possible no. of billable clicks, and 2) billing for those clicks at the highest possible rate.

A simple but real example of how publishers such as Google game the system is as follows.

PPC programs operate as an auction, with the highest biider's ad being diplayed first, at top of list, at a cost equal to $0.01 greater than the bid of the 2nd highest bidder. The 2nd highest bidder's ad is diplayed in the 2nd position, at a cost equal to $0.01 greater than the bid of the 3rd highest bidder, etc..

Originally, Google had a flat minimum required bid, which was not unreasonable, in that it allowed for the recovery of publishing costs while being affordable by all advertisers.

Now, however, Google sets arbitrarily higher minimum bids depending on who the bidder is and how much competition there is for the search term in question.

In short, they deliberately force the bidding to a higher level were and when possible, which is to there own gain alone.

This practice is merely the tip of the iceburg; the more egregious practices are much less obvious and more difficult to detect.

This suit was brought by a California class action mill that has sued Google several times before. You can see the original Complaint filed in the case here:

http://www.Techno...ogle.pdf

What a crock!

Attacking the proposition by way of attacking the proponent is the classical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

For some facts re. the Pay-per-Click business, see my above post.

He didnt even file a complaint with Google over the alleged misunderstanding.

If you had any experience working with Google, you would know that there is no way of either formally filing such complaint, or of even being assured of a timely, relevant and substantive response from Google.

Its like buying a house, you NEVER leave any field blank!

And, if you knew anything about data systems in general, and the Google AdWords platform in particular, you would know that there is a difference between a "blank" and a "null," and that Google itself frequently treats that which, to the human eye, appears as a "blank" to be the functional equivalent of a "null."

Lastly, the agreement between Google and ad publishers is a Contract of Adhesion. And, it is a long and well established principle that the burden of avoiding language and/or practices which give rise to misunderstandings, contradictions, multiple interpretations and/or vagueness rests solely with the party that controls the construction of such contract; in this case, Google. When such do arise, they are to be interpreted in favor of the adhering party; i.e. not Google.

Google controls the game, establishes the rules (which, are NOT consistent across their system), and creates arbitrary interpretations. Google is inaccessible, unlike YAHOO. Any misunderstanding i.e., consistency, on the part of the advertiser is impossible to correct except to Google's fiscal advantage.

Lawsuits are a lousy way to address tyrannical business practices but advertisers have no other choice within Google's system.