Comments on: Aussie Regulator Takes Google To Court.

By: Eight Black » Blog Archive » Google VS ACCC - An Intelligent Viewpoint.

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:56:24 +0000

[...] today. He’s far more polite than I am capable of being. Previous posts are here, here and here in case you missed my previous [...]

By: Eight Black » Blog Archive » ACCC Google Case Off To Shaky Start.

Eight Black » Blog Archive » ACCC Google Case Off To Shaky Start. — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:04:51 +0000

[...] case just seems so pointless. I posted about it here in case you missed [...]

By: Michael Hewitt-Gleeson

Michael Hewitt-Gleeson — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:58:37 +0000

It seems that the main putative point of the ACCC’s case relates to Google’s “dynamic keyword insertion” which inserts your keyword into the paid ads. When your keyword is also someone’s brandname the ACCC claims–not unreasonably–that this can confuse consumers as to the real identity of the advertiser.

The ACCC’s claim says that Google has, “permitted advertisers to create advertisements for display in Google sites which insert keywords which are business names or trademarks of businesses which have no relationship of sponsorship, approval or affiliation with those advertisers, including potential or actual competitors of the advertisers”.

In an age where corporate brands are valued as intrinsic assets of the shareholders and marketing and branding costs are significant corporate expenditures from the ACCC may have a point worth looking at.

By: Simon Chen

Simon Chen — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 03:44:10 +0000

Des, I totally agree. They’ll claim a victory of some sort. But the real issue is that it wont slow the Google machine down and nor will they have to revamp their core DNA of search advertising. A couple of hundred grand in legals, the same in PR agency fees, heated conversation between Google US and Australia, but thats about it. You always provide sound insight - want a job as a contributing editor!!

By: Des Walsh

Des Walsh — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:54:22 +0000

I suspect you are right in terms of the general outcome, Simon. But I suspect Dow Jones thought it was funny at first when Joe Gutnick in Melbourne took them on for defamation online. And I guess the $440,000 in fees and damages didn’t hurt them all that much. But I’m guessing they could have done without the aggravation. Human rights advocate Geoffrey Robertson QC was Dow Jones’ champion before the Australian High Court - no hypothetical, that one. Your post is very entertaining, but I wouldn’t be too quick to write off the ACCC’s chances of some sort of a win, Pyrrhic though it may be.

By: The ACCC and Google

The ACCC and Google — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:27:56 +0000

[...] people might scoff at the suggestion that Google don’t adequately distinguish between organic and paid searches, [...]

By: Ash Nallawalla

Ash Nallawalla — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:16:16 +0000

My post on the same topic was #3 for “Kloster Ford” and there were many other similar posts showing. Today only the ABC reference remains, along with this page and one from Bruce Clay.

Call me paranoid.