ACCC versus Google

[neddy]

RosesOnly having a smack

An online friend pointed this SMH article out to me.

RosesOnly.com.au is having a go at EasyFlowers.com.au - and it involves Google search.

Google sparks war of the roses

The online florist Roses Only is suing a South Australian competitor, easyflowers.com.au, claiming it attempted to hijack customers by paying Google to obtain greater prominence on the search engine.

Roses Only claims the easyflowers.com.au website appears as a ''sponsored link'' when the term ''roses only'' is entered as a Google search.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...f-the-roses-20120508-1yb2m.html#ixzz1v4R1xymr
.

 

[neddy]

Google wins!

Just saw this in The Australian:

GOOGLE has been cleared by the High Court of engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct over sponsored links on the search engine.

Google was successful when the case was first brought in the Federal Court, but the ACCC was then successful on appeal in the Federal Court. Google then applied to the High Court to have the matter resolved.

The High Court agreed with Google's arguments that it had not engaged in misleading or deceptive behaviour, and had not created the links to the ads that were published.

It ruled unanimously in Google's favour.

 

[findtim]

just searched "roses only" and "interflora" came up in google ads.

tim

 

[Ashman]

I saw Kogan doing the same thing during the "Click Frenzy" promotion. If you typed click frenzy into google Kogan was the only paid advertiser for the term. They must have made a packet during that promotion.

 

[Rhythm]

Kogan did the same when Harvey Norman allegedly had an exclusive on the Nexus 4.

Honestly have not and will not buy from either.

 

[neddy]

If you want to listen to a succinct summation of the case, have a listen to the ABC PM story (it's only 3 minutes 17 seconds):

PM - Google wins High Court case over online advertising 06/02/2013

There is also a transcript.

The ACCC has a good go of "spinning" the story.

 

[findtim]

If you want to listen to a succinct summation of the case, have a listen to the ABC PM story (it's only 3 minutes 17 seconds):

PM - Google wins High Court case over online advertising 06/02/2013

There is also a transcript.

The ACCC has a good go of "spinning" the story.

i did notice the sponsored link title change to "Ads related to ...." which is very loose term.
i remember google did say in its T&C's not to do what they did but having google to enforce it would be impossible, it would be like carsales having to check every car thats advertised.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

important case....now to read the reasons for the decision