| 2:27 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It's most probably just theft.
| 2:45 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I do not always click on ads with the intent of doing business - I often click to find out more information on a topic of interest.
| 5:43 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Rival companies might employ people or machines to do this because the advertiser has to pay the Web search provider for each click. |
I believe that this is fraud regardless of anything. If a competitor is depleting or running down my spend on purpose, it is fraud! But I also agree with rfontaine, that plenty of people do click on ads just "to find out more information on a topic of interest".
| 6:08 pm on Dec 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I do not always click on ads with the intent of doing business
As an AdWords advertiser, I have no problem with that attitude whatsoever. If my ad catches your interest then you're a prospect regardless of any pre-supposed intent to do business with me or not :)
| 2:25 pm on Dec 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This has been my non-lawyer take on the legality of click fraud.
Fraud is when you profit or stop someone else from profiting. Hence, clicking on your AdSense ads over and over is click fraud; however, it's questionable if it's legally defined fraud until you cash the check (i.e. have profited). It could be that it's just easier to prosecute with the proof that you made money from the deception, and thus all the lawsuits have waited until that point in time.
You are suppose to click on a search result on Google.com - so if you choose to click on the same listing over and over, it's not really fraud - you're just clicking on an option and NOT directly making money from it. Of course, one could argue intent and ruining someone else's business - and that gets into lawyer speak (which is over my head).
| 3:08 pm on Dec 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Depends entirely on where you are physicaly when you "click" and where the ad you click on is hosted physicaly ..
and the juristiction that is trying the case ..
no 2 countries fraud type laws are the same ..
| 8:39 pm on Dec 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In most jurisdictions, fraud requires an element of deception.
This means that the so-called "fraudulent clicks" are indeed just normal theft, or maybe "tortuous interference with business" or something along those lines, but not technically fraud.
In the end, the difference only matters if your lawyer doesn't understand the difference, and convinces you to file a suit under the wrong label...