Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I am wondering whether your income determines your fate with Google in cases of Invalid clicks. If you are low income, do they just cut their losses and ban you. At higher incomes, do they try to recover the money but allow you to remain in the short term.
So:
-What does everyone think? It makes sense from a business point of view.
-Has anyone else experienced a charge back yet?
-What is the likely fate of a site that has a significant charge back? Will they ban or penalise you after the money has been returned? (By penalise, I means things like harsher smart pricing, higher scrutiny of all clicks etc)?
If the violation is blatant and with proof, then it has nothing to do with small/large, your account goes Poof!
If the violation is minor or just a suspicion:
- Large account: You get a second chance if your account is worth keeping, but too many minor violations and you are Poof!
- Micro small account: you get put on the edge of a cliff pending a gentle push if you screw up.
The above are not facts I or anyone know about Google, just how I would do it if I was them.
Best not think about this stuff and spend your time making/counting the money!
Are you saying that Google has come back and said you had $200,000 in invalid clicks?
I would expect a ban, rather than a chargeback heh..
Mygen provided more information than in the current thread, but it still isn't enough. In the current thread, there isn't even any indication that the poster has approached google about the chargeback, they just saw something on their report page and are taking an "Oh well" attitude.
There is certainly no cause to believe that they are just allowing you to stay in the program long enough to collect their money.
If an account looks like it will cost more than it will make it gets cut, if not it stays. Just like the rest of us they will occasionally make mistakes. I think it's rare that there is ever any more to it than that.
There is certainly no cause to believe that they are just allowing you to stay in the program long enough to collect their money.
Possibly. But the other options open to them (when considering all acounts) to recover the costs of the alleged fraud would be to take it out of profits, or cut costs. The former would concern investors; the latter staff affected by the cuts. By keeping someone in the program, assuming the account continues to generate sufficient revenue, G is able to recover its costs.
Let's consider a thought experiment in the MyGen case. What would happen if MyGen decided to cancel the account? How would G recover its costs without affecting its bottom line or worrying investors? The only other option would be to sue MyGen for the US $200K, in which case they'd have to prove that "invalid" clicks resulted in the claimed damages.
If an account looks like it will cost more than it will make it gets cut, if not it stays. Just like the rest of us they will occasionally make mistakes. I think it's rare that there is ever any more to it than that.
Fair enough, but then I would want the ability to have the data audited by an independent third party, to make sure the mistake wasn't in G's processing of the data and reaching the wrong conclusion that "invalid" clicks had occurred.
in which case they'd have to prove that "invalid" clicks resulted in the claimed damages.
Unless they can show that the publisher has agreed to be liable for invalid clicks, in which case they don't have to prove anything about the invalid clicks, since the publisher has agreed that definition is at Google's sole discretion.
I don't think the current T&C clearly makes the publisher agree to incur out-of-pocket liability (as opposed to liability in their Google-invented-and-defined "account balance"). But I certainly will be watching for changes in that portion of the T&C.
Unless they can show that the publisher has agreed to be liable for invalid clicks, in which case they don't have to prove anything about the invalid clicks, since the publisher has agreed that definition is at Google's sole discretion.
Ah, but the legality of this agreement is at question here. Undoubtedly, the defense would point to past precedent for overturning agreements determined to be unlawful. So the case would hinge on (1) the ability to actually prove damages and (2) that a legit publisher can be legally held responsible for damages.
I would also speculate that if G were to pursue a lawsuit, it would face a considerable amount of collateral damage from current and future publishers, who would be much less likely to stay or join the program, fearing their legitimate earnings could be arbitrarily taken away.
Maybe if you hold this months payment google will have time to process it further and call it invalid
If I don't get the 1,000$ they owe me , and get a charge back next month I'm going to switch to a better advertising platform which doesn't take away your money.
Circumstances can affect how it is settled, but I don't think Google will make a claim against you that it can't back up.
I'm still awaiting a disposition on my account and making a lot of money--if it sticks.
awaiting a disposition on my account
Explain further? pm if you like... are you under review for invalid clicks? or what.
I'm going to switch to a better advertising platform which doesn't take away your money.
If I was you, I'd be sure I'm diversified NOW, like immediately, and be prepared.
Explain further?
I mentioned this in another thread, I have one page (channel) with an abnormally high CTR. Other pages may also be high from time to time but this one page has been running consistently high for weeks. I reported my suspicions to AdSense support and exchanged a few emails with them, have heard nothing of substance back yet. I'm keeping my fingers crossed and am hoping that some topics attract visitors who like the ads, it is possible. But without the additional data that AdSense has at their disposal I cannot determine this myself.
A chargeback could change my outlook on the site.
It is very simple in the law. If you are paid money in error it isn't yours and you must return it.
Yet the claim (by G) was that there were "invalid" clicks, not an error in processing that resulted in a credit to the accounts in question. Whether "invalid" clicks, particularly those that were at one point oonsidered valid is sufficient (lawful) reason to chargeback an account is at question here.
Circumstances can affect how it is settled, but I don't think Google will make a claim against you that it can't back up.
This is why I hope a case will eventually go to trial, so we all can see if G can back up its claims.
Yet the claim (by G) was that there were "invalid" clicks, not an error in processing that resulted in a credit to the accounts in question. Whether "invalid" clicks, particularly those that were at one point oonsidered valid is sufficient (lawful) reason to chargeback an account is at question here.
From the AdSense TOS: "Payment. You shall receive a payment related to the number of valid clicks on Ads," They go on to elaborate that Google is the sole judge of what constitutes a valid click. If they erred in their first determination of your "valid clicks" it is a payment in error.
Don't forget that you signed their contract written by their lawyers, it seems inconceivable that they hadn't thought of this.
Moreover they can change this agreement as a condition of continued participation, so it would seem to me that their bases are covered well.
Due to an accounting/human resources department error, I was once reimbursed an additional $2500 for a business trip. The company did not discover the error for over a month. I could have easily spent the money and claimed "bad deal" when they requested it back.
The difference in my case and Google is, no one knows when their clicks are invalid. Or do they?
If you think about it from a publisher/advertiser perspective, most affiliate programs have chargeback policies. If a customer purchases a product and has an invalid credit card, the advertiser will issue a chargeback and you must return those funds.
From the AdSense TOS: "Payment. You shall receive a payment related to the number of valid clicks on Ads," They go on to elaborate that Google is the sole judge of what constitutes a valid click. If they erred in their first determination of your "valid clicks" it is a payment in error.Don't forget that you signed their contract written by their lawyers, it seems inconceivable that they hadn't thought of this.
I find it interesting that you (and others) seem to believe that a contract supersedes all law. For example, some US companies require their employees to sign noncompete clauses in cases of layoffs. Litigation resulted in these contracts being unenforceable in certain states. The company laying off the worker could also be required to cover the former employee's salary for the duration of the noncompete.
All I'm saying is, these contracts may turn out to be unlawful when fully examined. But we won't know unless these "invalid" click cases go to trial.
All I'm saying is, these contracts may turn out to be unlawful when fully examined.
What's your theory? There has to be some basis for them being unlawful. There doesn't seem to be any parallel to the non-competition clauses you mention.
In any case the contracts will stand at least until tested in court, which is way beyond my current business event horizon, there isn't even an actual claim to challenge them as far as we know. Until then we're bound by these contracts.
What's your theory? There has to be some basis for them being unlawful. There doesn't seem to be any parallel to the non-competition clauses you mention.
My theory is that the courts will not find sufficient evidence of "invalid" clicks that warrant a large chargeback (such as the US $200K case). Rather, they will insist that a less arbitrary, more concrete definition be put in place. (Otherwise, G could issue chargebacks at will.)
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of California, except for its conflicts of laws principles. Any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be adjudicated in Santa Clara County, California. The parties specifically exclude from application to the Agreement the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act.
Your country's laws may not agree with certain parts of the contract, but virtually all courts recognize this little bit of legaleze as valid and will uphold it.
A certain set of laws have to govern a contract. It cannot be covered by laws from wherever is most convenient at the time of the lawsuit. The set of laws that govern it was agreed to, and there is a valid reason for the jurisdiction specified.
Good luck successfully having the case heard in your country. You might be able to do it, but it is far, very far, from a sure thing.
My theory is that the courts will not find sufficient evidence of "invalid" clicks that warrant a large chargeback (such as the US $200K case). Rather, they will insist that a less arbitrary, more concrete definition be put in place.
I think the courts (and juries) would defer to contract law which unlike click-fraud is rather clear-cut and easy to understand.
I can see juries snoozing through the finer points of explanations of click-fraud. If Google had killed or maimed innocent victims it might be different for a sympathetic jury, but outrage for denying the "victims" six figure profits--fergeddit!
But in any case this won't happen for at least a few years if ever. :: yawn ::
Well you can always appeal to a sense of reasonableness, so anything's possible if you go to court. But employer-employee law is a special area of legislation that has no bearing on AdSense contracts. I hope nobody here would claim they're an "employee" of Google in any useful sense.
German law knows pseudo self employed afaik, ie "outsourcing" so they don't have to pay insurance and so on. Given that G is essentially a monopoly in Europe, we all work for them. 18th century capitalism..
