hunderdown
msg:3020363 | 6:06 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Interesting. The objectors, if the one example given is typical, seem to be objecting that they shouldn't have to prove that they have experienced click fraud. But if they don't, the whole basis of our legal system falls down. The American justice system runs on proof, not accusation or innuendo or unsupported assertions ("I spent $27,000 on advertising and didn't get many clients, so there must have been click fraud!").
|
TinkyWinky
msg:3020507 | 7:53 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I don't know all the details but that is a ridiculously low settlement for a revenue stream that makes them billions. If they seriously think that off a 1 billion advertising revenue (for sayings sake) less than 10% is click fraud they have got be taking us all for a fool. Click fraud has to be 20% minimum - and that's year on year on the real turnover! I know I have accidently clicked on ads that I have no intention of clicking on usually, as they are 'hidden' in text or placed within text in such a way that an accidental click is inevitable - especially now that ad belnding is becoming more important - see Google Q2 profits [webmasterworld.com]
|
JayC
msg:3020561 | 8:38 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0) |
>> I don't know all the details but that is a
>> ridiculously low settlement for a revenue
>> stream that makes them billions. Among the important details is that the amount of a class action settlement hinges upon the strength of the case in question, not simply on what the contested amount of damages might be. Google's stance is that large amounts of unchecked click fraud would not be proven at trial. The fact is that no one knows how much click fraud there is, and it's not likely that a concrete number could ever be determined. That lowers the bar. They also point out that they are not contractually liable to compensate for every incident of click fraud that slips past their efforts to combat it, because advertisers have each made an agreement with Google that the company needs only to make "a reasonable effort" to combat the problem. Basically, Google never has guaranteed that they'd prevent it all; the class members agreed to that lowered expectation when they entered the program.
|
JayC
msg:3020591 | 8:54 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0) |
>> The objectors, if the one example given is
>> typical, seem to be objecting that they
>> shouldn't have to prove that they have
>> experienced click fraud. In fact, they don't have to prove anything. They only have to "certify" that they believe they were affected, and state the percentage of their total spending that was on keywords which they believe were affected. As to whether that was a "typical" objection, Google's response states that "a few" objectors raised that point. It also says that eight of the 51 objections were only over the percentage of the settlement that would go to the lawyers for the plaintiffs, one objected that Google shouldn't be liable at all, and three because they think the case shouldn't qualify as a class action. It doesn't really appear that there is a "typical objection."
|
rohitj
msg:3020592 | 8:59 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0) |
If the "pool" of participants in a class-action represent clients who aren't big spenders per-se, then wouldn't this also impact the $90 million settlement?
|
Alex_Miles
msg:3020610 | 9:11 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Is US civil law same as in the UK when it comes to deciding the outcome? If it is then you wouldn't have to prove anything to a 90% probability, only over 50% - the 'balance of probability'. If so, that recent Google statement about letting click fraud 'happen' was a little unwise.
|
europeforvisitors
msg:3020688 | 10:21 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| If so, that recent Google statement about letting click fraud 'happen' was a little unwise. |
|
Except Google didn't say that. It's easy to misrepresent the truth in a forum, but not so easy in court.
|
gregbo
msg:3020713 | 10:44 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| Interesting. The objectors, if the one example given is typical, seem to be objecting that they shouldn't have to prove that they have experienced click fraud. But if they don't, the whole basis of our legal system falls down. The American justice system runs on proof, not accusation or innuendo or unsupported assertions ("I spent $27,000 on advertising and didn't get many clients, so there must have been click fraud!"). |
|
The expert's findings noted a period of time within which doubly-clicked ads were charged for. As the policy was changed not to charge for doubly-clicked ads sometime in 2005, it's possible that some of the plaintiffs are entitled to a refund if they can show that they received doubly clicked ads during the time period in question.
|
venrooy
msg:3020940 | 2:52 am on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| It's easy to misrepresent the truth in a forum, but not so easy in court. |
|
It's also a lot easier to backpeddal online than it is in real life - That was said.
|
hdpt00
msg:3021345 | 12:22 pm on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0) |
It was said and then sort of taken out of context. Either way, it shouldn't have been said. These PhD's clearly have no sense of how stuff should be working recently. Fix your damn search results and then move on to something else. Stop releasing crappy beta products to get in the news, it is no longer helping your stock price when everyone now realizes you can't make money off of anything except AdWords/AdSense.
|
carminejg3
msg:3021917 | 9:39 pm on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I was off topic sorry :-)
|
wmuser
msg:3025917 | 3:23 pm on Jul 28, 2006 (gmt 0) |
That must been a nice settlement for Google,$90 million must been only a part of invalid clciks revenue
|
|
