Forum Moderators: open
S. Korean watchdog orders Google to fix unfair contract clauses South Korea's corporate watchdog said Monday it has ordered Google Inc to revise or delete unfair clauses in its advertisement contracts with Web site operators.
culture clash at its finest. heh.
I don't know the specifics of this... but I wouldn't be surprised if its just a factor of not understanding the whole Adsense concept. now that Google Korea is getting action via its new contract with Daum... people are actually starting to use it as a advertising tool and its VERY different from what they are used to.
I ran into similiar problems when PPC was first introduced in general in Korea. everyone was like "#*$!?" this looks like too much work and will never work and totally unfair! I lose all my money too quick!
ahhh those were the days. LOL.
will keep ya'll updated with how this pans out. ;)
If this does turn out to be a case of unfair practice in Korea I wonder if other countries will be able to use any judgements against Google as a precedent. It might be a bit too early in the game to be thinking about that yet though. ;)
South Korea's corporate watchdog said Monday it has ordered Google Inc., the world's largest Internet search engine, to revise or delete unfair clauses in its advertisement contracts with Web site operators.The Fair Trade Commission (FTC) has recently ordered the American company to change serveral clauses in its AdSense contract, allowing Google to "one-sidedly cancel advertisement deals," while it is written so that it doesn't guarantee returns to contracted website operators.
Yeah right! They expect Google to agree to use South Korea as the dispute arena for a disgruntled AdSense publisher who is suing for $35 in fraudulent clicks? Poor, "innocent" Korean nobody, scraping by to make ends meet for his family of 5 (who in reality spends all his time in a PC room, chain smoking, viewing porn, and playing WarCraft), versus the big, huge foreign giant with billions and billions of dollars in deep pockets. No contest.
While I strongly welcome more Korean publishers joining AdSense, which in turn should encourage more Korean AdWords advertisers, please, GOOG, show some backbone and don't give into their misguided demands!
While I would hope Google will be more artful, it's easy enough to transform " Google reserves the right to refuse participation to any applicant or participant at any time in its sole discretion" into "Except as otherwise required by law, Google reserves the right to refuse participation to any applicant or participant at any time in its sole discretion." It's implicit anyway - Google can't refuse participation, for example, on grounds which would violate U.S. civil rights laws. Would a guarantee of a 5% commission satisfy Korean regulation, even though Google pays substantially more?
To the extent that Google is forced to allow litigation over AdSense issues in other nations, or if the foreign nation also attempts to overturn choice of law provisions (i.e., that contract disputes are governed by California law), I would expect Google to respond as any business would - to offset the additional cost of local regulations by reducing the commissions to publishers located in those nations. Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.
I think it's unfair that they are unable to guarantee any form of stability or security. They don't even say that so long as you don't infringe our terms of service we will keep you in the program!
If you were employed and your contract of employment stated your employment could be terminated at any time for any or no reason, you'd think it unfair.
I don't care what the technical position is - if someone is getting the vast majority of his monthly income from Google Adsense then Google Adsense is his de facto employer. And as the de facto employer it's only right that Google shows some proper social awareness toward and regard for the de facto employee.
If you were employed and your contract of employment stated your employment could be terminated at any time for any or no reason, you'd think it unfair.
Additionally, just about every affiliate agreement I've ever read allows the company to terminate the agreement with the affiliate at any time for any reason.
Binding G's hands makes it more difficult for them to deal with the sneaky back-hats and fraudsters and is just likely to end up reducing the cut that G pays locals having had to cover extra fraud costs locally.
Typical bandwagon politics, and very ill-advised.
I'd like a little more symmetry in my contracts with billion-pound institutions too, but given what they have to lose if I'm a fraudster that finds a loophole, vs what their PR has to lose if they ACTUALLY systematically rip off the locals, the regulator should keep their nose out of it.
There *are* some big-name contracts that I will not use as a consumer because I've been royally screwed over and the big institutions involved didn't give a flying "Direct Debit Guarantee". But G is rather less unpleasant than the UK banking industry/telcos/government IMHO...
Rgds
Damon
That's the law in many US states, including mine - it's called "employment at will." Of course, it's not one-sided - the employee can also quit at any time without providing a reason.
From what I've read here, the number of incidents of totally unjustified termination and loss of revenue are very few. As an advertiser and a publisher, I'd prefer to see Google have the most effective tools to weed out fraud and avoid paying accrued revenue in such cases.
Sigh. The Korean government shooting themselves in the foot yet again in a misguided attempt to regulate something they don't understand.
If you were employed and your contract of employment stated your employment could be terminated at any time for any or no reason, you'd think it unfair.
Nice to see there still are people with common sense.
In the real world, if you don't agree with the terms of the contract, then don't sign it in the first place. If you think you have the power, you can try to change the terms of the contract before signing. But the reality is most people do not. So they have the choice to take it or leave it.
If one of the parties has no responsibilities whatsoever this is not a contractual obligation.
The fact that Google pays you if you are a publisher in good standing certainly qualifies in the United States.
...certainly qualifies in the United States.
...but we're talking about the government of South Korea here. There's a big difference. ;)
This issue hits close to home for us. We were recently sued by the Korea Association of Travel Agencies because they decided we were operating without a Korean travel agency license. Several weeks ago we received a call from KATA threatening to sue us unless we forked out mfor than $350,000 for a license. We patiently explained that we are not a Korean company and do not require one. We asked if they required one from Expedia or Travelocity, and they admited they didn't. We're in an identical position, so don't need a license. Everything seemed fine and dandy.
Last Thursday we received a call from the Korean police department informing us that KATA had filed a civil complaint against us. We called the KATA guy back and asked what was up. His response was basically, "I don't believe you, so I reported you to the police so they can investigate you."
So we had to spend all weekend gathering up paperwork to send to them to prove we're a U.S. company. Monday when we talked to the police, they pretty much said, "Yep, you're a U.S. company. But chances are other companies are going to take shots at you, so this probably won't be the last time."
The fact that Google pays you if you are a publisher in good standing certainly qualifies in the United States.
At worst, it's likely to be a civil tort.
And as the contract stands, and especially if G has good reason to believe fraud by its counterparty has occurred, why should it be compelled to pay up?
Rgds
Damon
Google, the U.S. web search giant, faces a W30 million (US$1=W945) lawsuit in Korea....Humor University said that it signed an agreement to host Google's Adsense ads and ran them for three months in late 2005, but Google refused to pay, citing click fraud. Humor University said Google never provided evidence to back up those claims.
article: [english.chosun.com...]
