Net News

Google Sues Internet Marketer Over False Ad Clicks

Google has filed a lawsuit against an Internet marketing firm, claiming the company defrauded Google's advertising network with false ad clicks.

The lawsuit, filed November 15th in California, alleges that Texas-based Auctions Expert International signed up to display Google's text advertising on its site, and then fraudulently clicked on ads to exploit Google's pay-per-click payment system.

According to Google's filing, Auctions Expert created its site and signed up for Google's programs with the sole intention of collecting advertiser fees through false clicks.

Google's case is one of the first involving click fraud, although the subject has been discussed frequently over the past few years by search engine marketing firms and others in the industry.

In March 2004, click fraud was brought into the spotlight when a California man was arrested and charged with extortion and wire fraud in connection with developing Google Clique, software designed to automatically click on paid ads.

In its SEC filing a month later, Google noted that the company was at risk of fraudulent clicks on its ad network, adding that it has regularly paid refunds related to the practice. Google also reported that it expects such refunds to increase.

Beyond taking fraudsters to court, as it has with Auctions Expert International, Google may find it has a tough job ahead in stopping click fraud.

Some in the marketing community are not so convinced that Google's motives in the lawsuit are as straightforward as they seem.

“I'm glad this is being pursued in court, because it absolutely should be,” says Jessie Stricchiola, president of Alchemist Media, a company that has been handling click fraud for a number of years.

“However, I think this particular action by Google is a strategically political move within the industry that deflects attention from how the company isn't as proactive with their advertiser relationships as they should be,” she told technology news center NewsFactor.

Taking Auctions Expert to court is important, says Stricchiola, but in her opinion, Google should be spending more time on resolving issues with refunds and technology for its advertisers.

“This lawsuit is a deflection from the fact that their technology is not as good as they say,” she said. “They're putting their attention in the wrong place.”

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has begun filing lawsuits against people suspected of illegally distributing movies over the Internet.

The civil suits will seek to stop trading and damages of up to $30,000 per film, the MPAA said, adding that damages could reach $150,000 if the infringement was deemed willful.

Studios have been slow to release DVD-quality films on the Internet because of the twin piracy and technological shortcomings ' it takes hours to download even a film at lower quality levels, while it takes minutes or seconds to download a song. Improving technology is cutting the gap, though.

“That distinction is rapidly vanishing, so we are taking these actions to try and prevent this illegal activity from becoming mainstream,” the MPAA said in a statement, adding that future technologies could allow movie downloads in as few as six seconds.

MPAA President and Chief Executive Dan Glickman said at a news conference that the music industry has had an impact on music piracy with its lawsuits.

“The industry should be thinking of new ways to deploy the new technology rather than suing the consumer,” Mediaport Entertainment Inc. Chief Executive Helen Seltzer, which makes kiosks, or automatic teller machines, to buy and download music, told the Associtaed Press. “We find that if students are given an easy way to download, they will do it and pay for it happily,” she said.

An MPAA attorney said studios would launch fewer lawsuits than the record industry, which has pursued more than 5000 people to date. Studios would also use “John Doe” lawsuits that allow them to pursue file traders without knowing the traders' identities.

Chris Ruhland, a former studio lawyer now at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, forecast the movie makers would win their days in court. “The law is very clear that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material is illegal,” he told the Associated Press.

In a statement on its Web site, the MPAA and its international counterpart, the Motion Picture Association (MPA), estimate that the U.S. motion picture industry loses in excess of $3 billion annually in potential worldwide revenue due to piracy. Due to the difficulty in calculating Internet piracy losses, that figure is not currently included in the overall loss estimates.

Just prior to press time, however, a federal judge in the Northern District Court in California stayed the cases against all but one John Doe, stating that as in the DirectTV cases “the joinder of unrelated defendants violated FRCP 20 since, although the basic claim was similar, the claims arose out of different transactions or occurrences. So here too – at least on the surface …. Such joinder may be an attempt to circumvent the filing fees by grouping defendants into arbitrarily-joined actions….” Thus, the cases against John Does 2-20 were stayed until the MPAA can show why its case is different than the DirectTV case.

And speaking of the RIAA law suits…

In a not-so-sly attempt at humor last month, we said that reporting that The Recording Industry Association of America has filed suit against more purported file-sharers was becoming a monthly occurrence. Well, here we are again. Add another 761 “John Does” to the Association's target list. And again, universities were targeted. Twenty-five of the suits were against individuals using a university Internet connection to illegal distribute music files on unauthorized peer-to-peer services such as eDonkey, Limewire and Kazaa, the RIAA says. Although not named in the suits, schools mentioned by the RIAA include Boston University, Boston College, Amherst University, American University and Iowa State University.

In a statement on its Web site, RIAA President Cary Sherman says: “The lawsuits are an essential educational tool. They remind music fans about the law and provide incentives to university administrators to offer legal alternatives. … College students are some of most avid music fans,” added Sherman. “The music habits and customs they develop now are likely to stay with them for life. It's especially important for us to educate them about the law, the harm suffered by musicians, labels and retailers alike when music is stolen, and the great legal ways to enjoy music online.”

The grand total: 6,952 have been sued by the RIAA since Sept. 2003, according to the Associated Press, and 1,300 of those have been settled out of court, with the average settlement totaling $3000.

Adult Web site Perfect 10 filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging that the search engine giant provided Internet users with at least 800,000 unauthorized links to images of Perfect 10's nude models, stealing membership fees and advertising revenue from the Los Angeles publisher. The lawsuit is one of the first of its kind against Google.

The suit, filed in Los Angeles county, claims that Google committed 12 counts of intellectual property violations against Perfect 10 magazine and the Web site, Perfect10.com.

Perfect 10 claims in the suit that Google's violation “is devastating to and threatens the existence of Perfect 10's business.” The publisher's attorneys want a jury trial.

Most of the violations alleged by Perfect 10 are copyright claims. The suit states that Google's search results pull up photos of nude female models that belong to Perfect 10. These search results, according to the suit, constitute an infringement. Google's search picks up the photos from other Internet locations, which are described in the lawsuit as “stolen content sites,” or Web sites that steal images and allow Internet users to avoid paying subscription or membership fees for members-only pornography web sites. Perfect10.com charges $25.50 per month and counts 100,000 visitors per month.

According to the suit, because Google profits from the misdeeds of others on the Web, it is legally and financially responsible for the alleged violations.

Google Sues Internet Marketer Over False Ad Clicks

Google has filed a lawsuit against an Internet marketing firm, claiming the company defrauded Google's advertising network with false ad clicks.

The lawsuit, filed November 15th in California, alleges that Texas-based Auctions Expert International signed up to display Google's text advertising on its site, and then fraudulently clicked on ads to exploit Google's pay-per-click payment system.

According to Google's filing, Auctions Expert created its site and signed up for Google's programs with the sole intention of collecting advertiser fees through false clicks.

Google's case is one of the first involving click fraud, although the subject has been discussed frequently over the past few years by search engine marketing firms and others in the industry.

In March 2004, click fraud was brought into the spotlight when a California man was arrested and charged with extortion and wire fraud in connection with developing Google Clique, software designed to automatically click on paid ads.

In its SEC filing a month later, Google noted that the company was at risk of fraudulent clicks on its ad network, adding that it has regularly paid refunds related to the practice. Google also reported that it expects such refunds to increase.

Beyond taking fraudsters to court, as it has with Auctions Expert International, Google may find it has a tough job ahead in stopping click fraud.

Some in the marketing community are not so convinced that Google's motives in the lawsuit are as straightforward as they seem.

“I'm glad this is being pursued in court, because it absolutely should be,” says Jessie Stricchiola, president of Alchemist Media, a company that has been handling click fraud for a number of years.

“However, I think this particular action by Google is a strategically political move within the industry that deflects attention from how the company isn't as proactive with their advertiser relationships as they should be,” she told technology news center NewsFactor.

Taking Auctions Expert to court is important, says Stricchiola, but in her opinion, Google should be spending more time on resolving issues with refunds and technology for its advertisers.

“This lawsuit is a deflection from the fact that their technology is not as good as they say,” she said. “They're putting their attention in the wrong place.”

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has begun filing lawsuits against people suspected of illegally distributing movies over the Internet.

The civil suits will seek to stop trading and damages of up to $30,000 per film, the MPAA said, adding that damages could reach $150,000 if the infringement was deemed willful.

Studios have been slow to release DVD-quality films on the Internet because of the twin piracy and technological shortcomings ' it takes hours to download even a film at lower quality levels, while it takes minutes or seconds to download a song. Improving technology is cutting the gap, though.

“That distinction is rapidly vanishing, so we are taking these actions to try and prevent this illegal activity from becoming mainstream,” the MPAA said in a statement, adding that future technologies could allow movie downloads in as few as six seconds.

MPAA President and Chief Executive Dan Glickman said at a news conference that the music industry has had an impact on music piracy with its lawsuits.

“The industry should be thinking of new ways to deploy the new technology rather than suing the consumer,” Mediaport Entertainment Inc. Chief Executive Helen Seltzer, which makes kiosks, or automatic teller machines, to buy and download music, told the Associtaed Press. “We find that if students are given an easy way to download, they will do it and pay for it happily,” she said.

An MPAA attorney said studios would launch fewer lawsuits than the record industry, which has pursued more than 5000 people to date. Studios would also use “John Doe” lawsuits that allow them to pursue file traders without knowing the traders' identities.

Chris Ruhland, a former studio lawyer now at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, forecast the movie makers would win their days in court. “The law is very clear that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material is illegal,” he told the Associated Press.

In a statement on its Web site, the MPAA and its international counterpart, the Motion Picture Association (MPA), estimate that the U.S. motion picture industry loses in excess of $3 billion annually in potential worldwide revenue due to piracy. Due to the difficulty in calculating Internet piracy losses, that figure is not currently included in the overall loss estimates.

Just prior to press time, however, a federal judge in the Northern District Court in California stayed the cases against all but one John Doe, stating that as in the DirectTV cases “the joinder of unrelated defendants violated FRCP 20 since, although the basic claim was similar, the claims arose out of different transactions or occurrences. So here too – at least on the surface …. Such joinder may be an attempt to circumvent the filing fees by grouping defendants into arbitrarily-joined actions….” Thus, the cases against John Does 2-20 were stayed until the MPAA can show why its case is different than the DirectTV case.

And speaking of the RIAA law suits…

In a not-so-sly attempt at humor last month, we said that reporting that The Recording Industry Association of America has filed suit against more purported file-sharers was becoming a monthly occurrence. Well, here we are again. Add another 761 “John Does” to the Association's target list. And again, universities were targeted. Twenty-five of the suits were against individuals using a university Internet connection to illegal distribute music files on unauthorized peer-to-peer services such as eDonkey, Limewire and Kazaa, the RIAA says. Although not named in the suits, schools mentioned by the RIAA include Boston University, Boston College, Amherst University, American University and Iowa State University.

In a statement on its Web site, RIAA President Cary Sherman says: “The lawsuits are an essential educational tool. They remind music fans about the law and provide incentives to university administrators to offer legal alternatives. … College students are some of most avid music fans,” added Sherman. “The music habits and customs they develop now are likely to stay with them for life. It's especially important for us to educate them about the law, the harm suffered by musicians, labels and retailers alike when music is stolen, and the great legal ways to enjoy music online.”

The grand total: 6,952 have been sued by the RIAA since Sept. 2003, according to the Associated Press, and 1,300 of those have been settled out of court, with the average settlement totaling $3000.

Adult Web site Perfect 10 filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging that the search engine giant provided Internet users with at least 800,000 unauthorized links to images of Perfect 10's nude models, stealing membership fees and advertising revenue from the Los Angeles publisher. The lawsuit is one of the first of its kind against Google.

The suit, filed in Los Angeles county, claims that Google committed 12 counts of intellectual property violations against Perfect 10 magazine and the Web site, Perfect10.com.

Perfect 10 claims in the suit that Google's violation “is devastating to and threatens the existence of Perfect 10's business.” The publisher's attorneys want a jury trial.

Most of the violations alleged by Perfect 10 are copyright claims. The suit states that Google's search results pull up photos of nude female models that belong to Perfect 10. These search results, according to the suit, constitute an infringement. Google's search picks up the photos from other Internet locations, which are described in the lawsuit as “stolen content sites,” or Web sites that steal images and allow Internet users to avoid paying subscription or membership fees for members-only pornography web sites. Perfect10.com charges $25.50 per month and counts 100,000 visitors per month.

According to the suit, because Google profits from the misdeeds of others on the Web, it is legally and financially responsible for the alleged violations.