Misleading ads: legal issues for webmasters and Google?

Reason for webmasters to appreciate our lack of editorial control over ads

[inactivist]

It seems we're not the only ones who have noticed some of the sleazy advertisers that appear on many sites:

[benedelman.org...]

(I did a search on WebmasterWorld and didn't see a reference to this article anywhere - so I apologize if this is an old topic.)

So, it seems that there may be a number of legal liabilities if Google doesn't act to clean up the network - but what about the webmaster? Do we expose ourselves to legal liability for allowing unreviewed and possibly misleading ad content to appear on our sites?

Based on my understanding of the DMCA, that as long as we do not have editorial review and approval over the advertisers that appear on our sites (except after-the-fact, via the competitive ad filter) that webmasters are off the hook for any liability. So, perhaps this is one reason to celebrate the lack of control when running Google AdSense.

(NOTE: I'm not a lawyer, and have no desire to be one.)

[tim222]

I have a disclaimer in my terms page that says I'm not responsible for offsite links. If you want to see a good example of a similar disclaimer, I found one at the Vermont Department of Education's website:

[education.vermont.gov...]

[iridiax]

I've always wondered about those reward offers Adsense ads that advertise a wide variety of products as "free" with no upfront disclaimers (like with TV and magazine ads), and only when you visit the website do you discover that "purchase may be required" buried in their fine print. Adsense text ad formats really don't have room for disclaimers about the use of "Free", so is it okay not to use a disclaimer in the ad?

[jhood]

Realistically, this could be a potential problem for Google at some point -- though likely not a very big one -- but it is very unlikely to be a problem for AdSense publishers. I am not a lawyer either, although I seem to be surrounded by them, and they assure me that in general, publishers and networks are not legally bound to police the claims made by advertisers.

There are all kinds of exceptions and there is always the possibility that some crusading attorney general or district attorney might want to try to make an example of someone. But on the list of things to lose sleep over, this is pretty low.

[tim222]

I found something interesting. This issue is being decided in Australia right now. The next hearing is tomorrow. In a nutshell, the Australian government has initiated legal action against Google for misleading advertising in sponsored links.

According to the announcement, "This is the first action of its type globally."

[accc.gov.au...]

[fredw]

This may not be a legal issue for webmasters, but is it a moral issue? I personally have never understood why Google allows these deceptive ads that use the word "free", when the landing page of the ad discloses in small print that a subscription is required. I have been removing these ads from my sites whenever I see them, using the competitive ad filter, but as we've discussed here before, that's not what the filter is for, and we can only filter ads we personally see, which is probably only the tip of the iceberg.

I thought we had been making a difference in this regard, for a while earlier this year, I had been noticing new ads for these services that didn't mention they were free. But the word seems to be back now, with a vengence.

[ccDan]

I personally have never understood why Google allows these deceptive ads that use the word "free", when the landing page of the ad discloses in small print that a subscription is required.

What!? Those morons!

A while back, I had an ad for an information site that said "free" help. The site was a series of articles (real content, not MFA) and it was all free. I was using AdWords to build traffic to the site. That was the intent anyway.

No subscription required. No hidden fees. No popups, popunders, etc.

All you had to do is visit the website to see that it's free. What I advertised, all there, free. I don't know how much more obvious it could be, aside from putting "FREE" in a big flashing banner across the site, which would be cheesy.

Google stopped running my ads, because they wanted me to provide proof that what I was advertising was free.

So, I can't run ads to advertise free information, no subscription required, etc., but these other guys can run ads for "free" services that actually say on their landing pages that a subscription is required!?

Unbelievable.