Australia's top court says Google's iffy ads do not mislead
Australia's High Court, the nation's ultimate tribunal from which no appeal is possible, has overturned lower courts' decisions that found Google misled and deceived users. At issue in the case was whether Google is responsible for the words and links its advertisers choose. The case arose after an online classifieds site bought …
This topic is closed for new posts.
As a lot of us use ad blockers these days does anyone actully see any Google Ads?
Ad Blockers
My favourite ad is white space - much easier on the eyes than having yet another FB ad flashing in your face.
Re: Ad Blockers
I hate, I hate, I hate those talking flash adverts ...
Re: Ad Blockers
What ads? Hell, when I use someone else's computer to browse the web, I hardly recognise it.
Right moves...
...wrong targets.
They should have gone after the advertisers themselves. This would be like someone complaining about a misleading ad on TV and ACCC going after the TV station rather than the advertiser.
Why is it that as soon as a computer or the internet is involved, companies and governments seem to switch their common sense off?
"They should have gone after the advertisers themselves" - they did
Google -and- the cars-for-sale web site were prosecuted. Apparently the web site isn't appealing, at least it doesn't appeal to me. I do feel, however, that Google can't quite have no responsibility whatsoever in this. And after all, they -do- know what's on every web site in the world.
Re: Right moves...
Why is it that as soon as a computer or the internet is involved, companies and governments seem to switch their common sense off?
Perhaps because Google provided a single target that involved a lot of money and there is an election 'round the bend. There is always the possibility that the accused might cop a plea rather than going through with the trial. In that case, the ACCC could have gotten a double payout by chasing down the advertisers, too.
Individual responsibility.
Early analysis of the judgement from the Australian Copyright Council
Sure, bet that's neutral!
suggests it "highlights the need for an alternative response to intermediary liability issues."
How about "Everyone is responsible for their own actions, not other people's"?
Righting historic abuse of court process
Whatever the morality of this decision, I'm glad that the High court has finally thrown out the old precedent. Which in AUS was established by a cosy little case between Ford and General Motors.
In which the two members of the market duoply agreed that they wouldn't advertise to each others customers, and smaller competitors trying to enter the market wouldn't be allowed to either.
This topic is closed for new posts.
