Court Rules Class Action Can Proceed Against Google Over AdWords

[engine]

This case was kicked into touch previously, but looks now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it can proceed.

The Adwords service was primarily aimed at placing ads next to relevant Google Internet search results. But the plaintiffs said Google should have disclosed that ads would also appear in undesirable places such as error pages and undeveloped websites known as parked domains. Court Rules Class Action Can Proceed Against Google Over AdWords [reuters.com]

[blend27]

They will just UP AdWords by 1 Cent on SMBs, Pay for it(settlement) and call it a Day and a Half.

[keyplyr]

I tried putting Adsence on hard-coded 401 and 404 pages and after a few days the adds stopped displaying. When I read the Adsence rules, it clearly stated against doing so. That was 2 years ago.

[randle]

A lot of new people that used Adwords got smoked in the beginning because they had no idea that "Adwords" meant your enrolled in the world of "Adsense" unless you turn it off.

There is a radical difference between search based contextual advertising and ads that appear on sites you happen to be browsing. Bundling those two together without telling an unsuspecting customer isn't right.

The ethical set up should have been its off, unless you turn it on.

[EditorialGuy]

Actually, the Supreme Court didn't rule on anything. It simply declined to hear the case.

[IanKelley]

A lot of new people that used Adwords got smoked in the beginning because they had no idea that "Adwords" meant your enrolled in the world of "Adsense" unless you turn it off.

There is a radical difference between search based contextual advertising and ads that appear on sites you happen to be browsing. Bundling those two together without telling an unsuspecting customer isn't right.

I remember testing out Adwords in the early days. The delineation between search advertising and the "content network" were well defined and explained.

The case seems silly to me.

A lot of the traffic on the content network is crap though, automated, essentially a scam. Interestingly it was a lot better (or at least Google did a better job of finding and crediting bad traffic after the fact) during the time period the case covers.

[tangor]

By declining to hear the case, the lower court ruling remains effective, thus the class action suit can proceed. And it is instructive to know that the case was brought before a California court for California advertisers regarding Google Adwords procedures between 2004 and 2008.

[ogletree]

AdWords is designed to make lots of money and give very little in return. Most people that use AdWords take the horrible default settings and lose a lot of money. They even use the keyword planner to create ad groups with lots of long broad match keywords that will also have a very low QS. They make AdWords sound like it is easy to use when in fact it is quite difficult to use properly. I audit a lot of accounts and I constantly see accounts set up this way and they are losing tons of money.

I run into people all the time that tell me AdWords is a waste of money because they just don't know how to use it. Google could make it a lot easier to use properly but that would cost them a lot of money. No corporation is going to do the right thing and be fair. The goal is to get your as much of their money as possible no matter what they have to do to get it.

Google profits would tank if every AdWords user instantly started using it the right way.

[System]

Let's keep this discussion focused on the class action case and post other Adwords questions in the Adwords forum :)

The following 3 messages were cut out to new thread by goodroi. New thread at: Adwords user dealing with big bill due to broad match [webmasterworld.com]
9:49 am on Jun 20, 2016 (utc -5)

[edited by: goodroi at 2:54 pm (utc) on Jun 20, 2016]

[superclown2]

Adwords should carry a public wealth warning.

It is a massively complex programme; the book I use to navigate it is over 650 pages long and every page is hard going. It is absolutely bursting with traps for the unwary. Yes it is possible to make good money from it but a beginner should really seek professional help, at least at first. Is this Google's fault, or should people like the plaintiffs have observed the old rule of Caveat Emptor? It sounds like a good playground for the lawyers.

I believe that Google genuinely wants people to be successful with Adwords because that is the only way to ensure long term business. They offer plenty of help to those that ask for it. Perhaps, though, they should be more open about the darker side. It might do their bottom line some harm in the short term but it could stop a whole lot of would-be regular customers from getting thoroughly hacked off. Is it in their DNA though? I rather doubt it, and if that's correct this case could be the first of many.