Comments on: Google Not Liable in Adwords Case – What does it mean to Local?

By: Will the Real Google LBC Ad Please Stand Up! | Understanding Google Maps & Local Search

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:20:32 +0000

[...] for being too liberal in allowing others to leverage a brand and also they have been criticized (although exonerated) for allowing deceptive ads to be [...]

By: panzermike

panzermike — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:46:33 +0000

@CJ

I agree with Mike. But the point is, when you are noticed that you are helping promulgate a crime, and do nothing, well . . . . need I say more?

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:25:33 +0000

I don’t necessarily view it as a bad legal decision as much as bad outcome that is a result of a bad law.

The issue for me is that once Google (or whomever) knows that it is being used for illegal purposes and it DOES NOTHING and the illegality continues, that they should retain immunity.

Certainly a 3rd party website can not reasonably be held responsible for the activities of all the users all the time. But once illegal actions have taken place on that website due the design of the website, then there should be some legal obligation incurred and not immunity.

In the case of Local, when listings are being hijacked and used to illegally divert income from the business owner via Google, should Google not have a legal obligation to fix the hijacked listing immediately? Should they not have a liability if they don’t? Should they be immunized if they continue to allow these hijackings even when they know that they are illegal and they have not put in place any system to properly prevent these hijackings?

Mike

By: CJ

CJ — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:07:43 +0000

I fail to see why you view this as a bad legal decision. Besides being squarely within the law, it would be ridiculous to hold Google liable for something an advertiser does long after the initial ad-click. Should any newspaper that ever ran an ad for a local grocery store be potentially liable if the grocery store one day sells expired meat, or dismisses an employee unfairly? Obviously not, and to hold a search engine liable for the actions of every advertiser is a very slippery slope.

By: panzermike

panzermike — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:13:10 +0000

BTW. I realize that libel and fraud are two different things. Here the argument was that Plaintiff was a third party beneficiary of the contract between the seller and Google.

But the point I was making, is that republishing fraud should be illegal just as defamation is.

By: panzermike

panzermike — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:05:06 +0000

I need to read the actual court opinion, but my gut tells me the decision will not stand in light of past case precedence in similar fact patterns.

Republishing libel after being put on notice takes you immediately out of the protection of the law.

So my guess is that this is round one and that the federal judge was basically summarily adjudicating the case based upon the information he had.

It could be that the responding party failed to meet their burden by showing Google was on notice it was libel.

By: Mike Blumenthal

Mike Blumenthal — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:43:26 +0000

One doesn’t need a tin foil hat….there is no conspiracy here…just laws written by big companies to protect big companies….

Certainly if the action occurs without Google’s (or whomever’s) knowledge and they take it down promptly, it is one thing. But to have immunity even after they know of crime and do not act that is something else…..

Mike

By: Will Scott

Will Scott — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:59:30 +0000

I’m not dusting off my tinfoil hat or anything but I think this points to a serious problem.

As more users migrate away from Yellow Page and they turn the focus of their buying searches to Google and so many 3rd parties find value in controlling the conversion, there is an inherent responsibility and conflict.

I mean, Google is becoming Media (with a big M) – it’s not just the lack of competitiveness online that’s worrisome, it’s the offline as well.

If they, who are the ultimate monetizers have no liability, we who need the business they bring are forced to rely on 3rd party distribution channels who are becoming the trusted feeds…

…whether or not those 3rd parties have our best interests at heart.

The data and SMB aggregators will always be focused on controlling the conversion and increasing switching costs.

I want an opportunity for the little guy to succeed and if Google has no liability relative to intentional inaccuracy then we have a serious problem.

Will