ID :
208864
Thu, 09/22/2011 - 14:38
Auther :
Shortlink :
http://m.oananews.org//node/208864
The shortlink copeid
ACCC loses case against Google
(AAP) - Australia's consumer watchdog has lost its case that claimed Google engaged in conduct likely to mislead or deceive the public.
In the Federal Court on Thursday, Justice John Nicholas rejected a claim by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) that Google failed to distinguish properly between advertisements and search results.
The ACCC had alleged the appearance of "organic" search results and ads - or sponsored links - was essentially the same.
Justice Nicholas did not accept that users were likely to understand that sponsored links were the same as organic search results.
"The second part of the ACCC's case is based upon 11 distinct claims involving various advertisers and sponsored links which Google is alleged to have published on its results pages," he said.
It claimed the links were misleading as they included a headline consisting of a trading name, a product name or a website address of the advertiser's competitor but which also served as a link to the advertiser's website.
One of the 11 claims related to the Trading Post, in 2005, placing on Google's search engine an advertisement for "Kloster Ford", a Newcastle dealership.
If people clicked onto the advertisement, they were taken to the Trading Post site.
Kloster had no association with the site, had not approved of the linking of its name and the site, and had not paid for the link.
The judge declared that Trading Post Australia Pty Limited had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the advertisement.
The ACCC claimed that due to Google's significant input into the Trading Post's Kloster ad - and 10 other ads cited - it had also made representations breaching the relevant act.
But Justice Nicholas concluded Google merely communicated what Trading Post represented without adopting or endorsing any of it, also dismissing claims about the other ads.
He ordered Trading Post to pay $28,000 towards the ACCC's legal costs and the ACCC to pay Google's costs.
In a statement, the ACCC said since the watchdog launched the proceedings, Google has changed the description of advertisements on its search results pages from "sponsored links" to "ads".
"This case is important in relation to clarifying advertising practices in the internet age," ACCC chairman Rod Sims said.
"All businesses involved in placing advertisements on search engines must take care not to mislead or deceive consumers."
The ACCC also noted that on the first day of the hearing, March 8 this year, Google released a Business Names Policy.
It prohibited advertisers using unrelated business names in the first line of ad text, when they used that name to imply a special relationship with any unrelated third party.
In the Federal Court on Thursday, Justice John Nicholas rejected a claim by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) that Google failed to distinguish properly between advertisements and search results.
The ACCC had alleged the appearance of "organic" search results and ads - or sponsored links - was essentially the same.
Justice Nicholas did not accept that users were likely to understand that sponsored links were the same as organic search results.
"The second part of the ACCC's case is based upon 11 distinct claims involving various advertisers and sponsored links which Google is alleged to have published on its results pages," he said.
It claimed the links were misleading as they included a headline consisting of a trading name, a product name or a website address of the advertiser's competitor but which also served as a link to the advertiser's website.
One of the 11 claims related to the Trading Post, in 2005, placing on Google's search engine an advertisement for "Kloster Ford", a Newcastle dealership.
If people clicked onto the advertisement, they were taken to the Trading Post site.
Kloster had no association with the site, had not approved of the linking of its name and the site, and had not paid for the link.
The judge declared that Trading Post Australia Pty Limited had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the advertisement.
The ACCC claimed that due to Google's significant input into the Trading Post's Kloster ad - and 10 other ads cited - it had also made representations breaching the relevant act.
But Justice Nicholas concluded Google merely communicated what Trading Post represented without adopting or endorsing any of it, also dismissing claims about the other ads.
He ordered Trading Post to pay $28,000 towards the ACCC's legal costs and the ACCC to pay Google's costs.
In a statement, the ACCC said since the watchdog launched the proceedings, Google has changed the description of advertisements on its search results pages from "sponsored links" to "ads".
"This case is important in relation to clarifying advertising practices in the internet age," ACCC chairman Rod Sims said.
"All businesses involved in placing advertisements on search engines must take care not to mislead or deceive consumers."
The ACCC also noted that on the first day of the hearing, March 8 this year, Google released a Business Names Policy.
It prohibited advertisers using unrelated business names in the first line of ad text, when they used that name to imply a special relationship with any unrelated third party.
