graeme_p - 8:27 am on Mar 18, 2010 (gmt 0)
or on the otherís written standard terms of business.
That is consistent with what I said. The addition protection just for consumers is in the sections on unreasonable indemnity clauses and on consumer guarantees.
In other words, Google cannot revise it's payment rates downward unilaterally since this could be regarded as a substantially different performance
No. Read a bit further The guidelines for reasonableness in Schedule 2 include:
(c) whether the customer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the existence and extent of the term (having regard, among other things, to any custom of the trade and any previous course of dealing between the parties);
It is made crystal clear that the percentage is a secret and may be varied, so it fails this, at least,and probably this:
(b) whether the customer received an inducement to agree to the term, or in accepting it had an opportunity of entering into a similar contract with other persons, but without having to accept a similar term;
And (d) and (e) are not applicable, so that leaves (a) which is dubious at best, and not really enough by itself.
Finally, there are a lot of Adsense publishers in the UK, a lot of whom have problems with Google. Has a single one brought a successful action claiming it is an unfair contract? Any of them could have, if you were right.