Google Sued for Deception

Dennis Faas's picture

Recently, we reported on Australia's disinterest in Microsoft Vista. Now, the former crook colony is lashing out at another tech heavyweight, launching a lawsuit against web giant Google.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is suing Google for deception. The world's most popular online search engine is being accused of misleading users with links paid for by its advertisers.

The ACCC feels that Google has allowed advertisers who falsely claim to be associated with other companies to place their links next to those of the companies that deny any relation to them. Therefore, by creating an alliance between two businesses that have no involvement with each other, Google is allegedly engaging in false advertisement.

Another concern of the ACCC is Google's method of displaying search results. Advertisers who are identified at the top of each page and in the right-hand column also appear in the main search results, where they are not identified as sponsors.

In regards to this specific issue, Google should know better. Back in 2001, the Federal Trade Commission proposed that paid search results only be visible to clients using the search engine as long as they were clearly labeled as such.

In light of these problems, "The ACCC wants Google to make it much clearer which search results are paid for, as well as an acknowledgement of wrongdoing and full legal costs." (Source:

Responding to these accusations, Google said that the action was "an attack on all search engines and the Australian businesses, large and small, who use them to connect with customers throughout the world". (Source:

If the ACCC wins the case, the courts will make Google responsible for policing such behaviour. This task will be difficult. For example, regulating auctions to make sure that bidders own any trade-marks they are trying to buy may be complicated.

Let's face it, if Google is sentenced to vigilante work the Internet could experience some drastic changes.

| Tags:
Rate this article: 
No votes yet