Google agrees to pay $90 mln on click fraud lawsuit

[GoodJob]

Looks like something from 2002, but looks like agreement to pay was announced today.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...KOC_0_US-GOOGLE-CLICKFRAUD.xml&archived=False

 

[StudDomainer]

GoodJob google must be mad about this one. I would think so!

 

[mole]

Admission of guilt and the amount involved to settle this suit is the start of the fall of the limping PPC model.

 

[Premium Domains]

What goes around comes around. Serves them right!

 

[sm]

This is actually not about re-imbursing a particular advertiser, but all of those who have claims regarding fraudulent clicks from the time Google started PPC advertising. So, what this means is that ALL pending cases against them would be covered by a MAXIMUM payout of 90M minus the legal fees, etc. So, it's not such a bad deal for google.

 

[slaughterbeck]

Here's a little bit more from Fox News

Google Agrees to Pay $90M for 'Click Fraud'


SAN FRANCISCO — Google Inc. has agreed to pay up to $90 million to settle a lawsuit alleging the online search engine leader overcharged thousands of advertisers who paid for bogus sales referrals generated through a ruse known as "click fraud."

The proposed settlement, announced by the company Wednesday, would apply to all advertisers in Google's network during the past four years. Any Web site showing improper charges dating back to 2002 will be eligible for an account credit that could be used toward future ads distributed by Google.

The total value of the credits available to advertisers will be lower than $90 million because part of that amount will be used to cover the fees of lawyers who filed the case last year in Arkansas state court. The proposed settlement still requires final court approval.

The lawsuit, filed by Lane's Gifts and Collectibles on behalf of all Google advertisers, revolves around one of the most sensitive subjects facing Google and Yahoo Inc., which runs the Internet's second largest marketing network.

Yahoo, which is also named in the suit, said Wednesday that it intends to fight the lawsuit's allegations.

Mountain View, Calif.-based Google makes virtually all of its money from text-based advertising links that trigger commissions each time they are clicked on. Besides enriching Google, the system has been a boon for advertisers, whose sales have been boosted by an increased traffic from prospective buyers.

But sometimes mischief makers and scam artists repeatedly click on specific advertising links even though they have no intentions of buying anything. The motives for the malicious activity known as click fraud vary widely, but the net effect is the same: advertisers end up paying for fruitless Web traffic.

The lawsuit alleged Google had conspired with its advertising partners to conceal the magnitude of click fraud to avoid making refunds.

The frequency of click fraud hasn't been quantified, causing some stock market analysts to worry Google's profits will falter if it turns out to be a huge problem.

Google executives have repeatedly said the level of click fraud on its ad network is minuscule — a contention that the proposed settlement amount seems to support.

The $90 million translates into less than 1 percent of Google's $11.2 billion in revenue during the past four years.

Google disclosed the settlement after the stock market closed. The company's shares fell $10.57 to close at $353.88 on the Nasdaq Stock Market, then shed another $2.11 in extended trading.

 

[cache]

google does ban any fraud account, how can it be responsible? How can it "conspired"?

 

[sm]

this is regarding allegations that google doesnt do "enough" to discount fraudulent clicks. hence, it is "deemed" to be responsible.

 

[GoPC]

Redundant Question: How in the WORLD are they determining what IS or is NOT click fraud?

Think about this for a second... A suit was brought against Google for Click Fraud. That would imply, due to the fact that Google is settling, that Google KNEW and CONDONED the alleged click fraud.

In fact, one may conclude from the annoucement that Google itself was guilty of click fraud.

This suit smells bad to me. Google either has some very precise way of tracking what is click fraud and chose to do nothing about it (for which they are now liable) or Google didn't have a way to monitor it effectively denoting negligence (for which they are now liable).

However, this all means ONE thing... YOU ADSENSE IS GOING TO BE OVER SCRUTINIZED.... but WHY?

For all their miraculous technology and Billions of dollars and super secret search databased on each one of us and their super secret "click fraud detector kit", they haven't simply thought of logging your own IP address and setting a DO NOT PAY code for when an ad is clicked through your own address?

I mean I can't possibly be the only one not to see the obvious stupidity here that is causing SO MUCH heartache.

They are ALREADY tracking you clicking your own ads and they are already tracking an overabundance of clicks from one IP and so on... why not simply USE that information to regulate the offense.

After all, I see ads pop up all the time on my sites that I would LOVE to click through to see more information. But I can't because Google will AXE me for doing exactly what a paying advertiser WANTS... me to click his ad and perhaps BUY something.

Now that the precedence is set, we should very shortly see an advertiser suing google for prohibiting the tens of thousands of Adsense users from viewing their ads and therefore costing these advertisers potential revenue.

XXX Million Adsense member views multiplied say a 10% click through rate and a %1 puerchase rate... that is costing Adsense Advertisers Millions of Dollars in revenues every year!

So while we see Google settling for $90 Mill for users clicking their own ads I predecit we will see Google also settling for another $XX Mill for NOT letting potential customers click the very same ads.

Why? Because Google had a method in place to PROPERLY regulate click fraud yet CHOSE not to. That is negligence and that is why they are paying up.

And who wins? Who looses?

You and I, my friend... WE DO.

GoPC

 

[cache]

who should be punished?

1. google? (why?)
2. the publisher who runs the ads? (problem with this is that someone would love to trick their enemy by fraud clicking)
3. the person does the fraud clicking? (how?)

 

[GoPC]

who should be punished?

1. google? (why?)
2. the publisher who runs the ads? (problem with this is that someone would love to trick their enemy by fraud clicking)
3. the person does the fraud clicking? (how?)

What I am suggesting answers these questions...

Google ALLOWS publishers to click their own ads with a DO NOT PAY code attached. This eliminated direct click fraud and allows users to click their own ads and give Advertisers ADDED exposure at NO cost. After all, who is more loyal to their ads then the site owner? LOL!

This reduces the potential offenders to enemies of the program or genuine baddies who will visit their neighbors to click a bunch of ads. In this case, they simply use the current system to identify the repeat pings from an IP and take the appropriate action if/when needed.

Either way, Google would then APPEAR to be taking adequate steps to encourage ads use while protecting its advertising partners.

Win Win.

I've decided to provide these consulting services to Google for only HALF my regurlar fees... $500,000 shoud do nicely

GoPC

 

[aplora]

this is regarding allegations that google doesnt do "enough" to discount fraudulent clicks. hence, it is "deemed" to be responsible.

I think Google figures out some clicks are fraudulent and close accounts but never tracks back and pays the affected advertizers... have you seen anything given back in your adwords account... i had been using it for a long time and sometimes i feel some of the visits are frauds... but never get anything back...

 

[Shorty]

The people knowingly and intentionally doing the fraudulent clicks should be the ones punished, not Google. That's just my opinion though.

Oh, and technically they're not losing anything. They're just reimbursing what they shouldnt have been paid in the first place technically, so yeah...

 

[GoPC]

SNIP - The people knowingly and intentionally doing the fraudulent clicks should be the ones punished, not Google. - SNIP

And the Abusers... don't forget the abusers.

GoPC

 

[Xyzer]

Never really have liked google, thanks for that though, rep added.

 

[Malaysia]

hwo to determine click frauds..maybe they shud like open the website for like one minute or so to justify this? but i think one minute is toolong..i click on smth dun find it right i just close it..may just take few secs i thinks

 

[sonyking]

wow thats alot of money to be paid by google.Even though its not alot out of googles billiions of dollars.