Google-hating Aussie watchdog smacked by confused judge

After accusing Google of misleading web users with its money-making
sponsored links, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
(ACCC) has been accused of saying things that don't make sense.

The ACCC showed up in Australian federal court yesterday, two months
after bringing legal action against Google, and Judge James Allsop
told the consumer watchdog that its court documents were almost
"incomprehensible," "opaque," and "somewhat repetitious," The
Australian reports. He then asked the ACCC to clarify its position
with new documents, planning to revisit the matter next month.

In July, the commission kicked off legal proceedings against Google,
two of its subsidiaries, and an Australian classifieds site called
Trading Post, alleging "misleading and deceptive conduct in relation
to sponsored links that appeared on the Google website." The ACCC
claims that the search giant fails to properly distinguish between
"organic" search results and advertising results, and it's annoyed
that Trading Post was able to attract customers using sponsored links
that included the names of two independent car dealerships, Kloster
Ford and Charlestown Toyota.

In accusing Google of violating Australia's Trade Practices Act, the
ACCC is sure that it's the first organization on earth to legally
question the distinction between search results that are paid for and
those that are not. In the U.S., close to a dozen companies have
brought suit against Google for allowing competitors to piggy-back
sponsored links on their trademarks, including American Airlines, but
in recent years, there's been relatively little controversy over the
way sponsored links are presented.

In 2001, an organization led by uber-consumer-advocate Ralph Nader
complained to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission about deceptive
sponsored links, and a year later, the FTC fired off a letter to the
country's search engines, insisting they clearly separate paid search
from unpaid. "Search engine practices weren't terrible at the time of
the FTC letter, and they're better now than they were in 2002," Santa
Clara University law professor and tech law blogger Eric Goldman told
The Reg. "In terms of confusion between ads and search results, we
really haven't seen much stress about that."

You could also argue that Google was clearly marking its sponsored
links well before the rest of the market. "Google's practices were
always better than the prevailing state of the art," Goldman
continued. On Google's main search page, sponsored links appear in a
tinted box tagged with the words "Sponsored Links," and they look much
the same on sites run by Google Ireland and Google Australia, the two
subsidiaries the ACCC is complaining about.

Of course, anyone who visits Google after fifteen years stranded on a
desert island may not understand the term "sponsored link." "You can
always do more to make it clearer that these are ads and not search
results," Goldman said. "Does the term sponsored link communicate 'ad'
- or does it communicate something else?"

When we contacted Google, it gave us a predictable response to the
news from Australia. "From the outset, we have stated this case is
wrongly based and we're now making our arguments to the Court," said
spokesman Rob Shilkin. "Our focus is on delivering relevant
information to Australian users and helping Australian businesses
enjoy the benefits of search marketing."

After the initial response from Judge Allsop, it doesn't look like the
company has all that much to worry about. (r)

--
the more the better

Register for free and tap into new sources of income! -
http://ad.zanox.com/ppc/?6038548C1871162661T