Otra nota en el NYTimes sobre los problemas monopólicos del sistema de Adwords. Un usuario se quejó del incremento del precio de Adwords y de la bajada de tráfico porque su land page no cargaba rápidao.. en fin.. un cambio en el algoritmo de Google y muchos quedan afuera o bajan y otros suben.. no se puede satisfacer a todos…
Veraz contends that Globinfo is using the trademarked term “veraz” and “organizacion veraz” in sponsored links in www.google.com.ar. Veraz is the leading credit reporting agency in
The judge issued the injunction on two basis: the law of trademarks and unfair competition law ordering the defendant to stop using plaintiff trademarks as sponsored links.
The decision (see copy in PDF format) has not been published yet because it is only an injunction; the main lawsuit is being prepared to be launched soon.
Globinfo filed a motion to protect their Adwords account information (plaintiff requested to Google all information related to the user of the infringed trademarks, including dates of use, payments of money, etc..…). Globinfo is arguing that the information is a trade secret and Google should not disclose it.
A Christian group is suing Google over the internet giant’s refusal to take its anti-abortion advertisements. The Christian Institute, a “non-denominational Christian charity”, wanted to pay Google so that whenever the word “abortion” was typed into the popular search engine, its link would appear on the side of the screen. [Daily Mail]
The Australian (NOT AUSTRIAN!) regulator has accused Google of misleading conduct over sponsored hyperlinks embedded in its results site.
As in Australia, now it is the turn of Spain. FACUA a consumer ngo has file a complaint against Google Spain for selling trademarks of competitors in Google Adwords (see previous post related to similar case in Australia).
Australia’s consumer watchdog has launched a world-first court action accusing internet giant Google of misleading web users by misidentifying sponsored links on its search engine. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said it wanted Google to stop publishing search results that fail to distinguish between paid advertisements and “organic” search results.
Google yanked paid advertisements that online criminals were using to steal banking and other personal information from Web surfers looking for the BBB and other sites. The ads, linked to 20 popular search terms, directed those who clicked on them to a booby-trapped site where their information could be captured.
A federal court in Pennsylvania has ruled that so long as a forum selection clause in an online contract’s terms is readily accessible and clear, requiring users to scroll down or print the contract to see it and other terms is acceptable, and will not absolve a party who clicks in the “I Agree” button without taking the time to view the whole agreement. The tribunal determined that Google’s AdWords Terms & Conditions (the U.S. version), a clickwrap contract, was completely enforceable.
Feldman v. Google Inc. decision.
A federal court in Delaware has ruled that a search-based advertising service may refuse to carry ads that would make it an unwilling mouthpiece for speech it deems objectionable. Just as newspapers have the right to reject content that goes against their editorial discretion (see U.S. Sup. Ct. case in Miami Herlad v. Tornillo), so too do search engines, the federal judge concluded. The court granted motions by Google and MSN seeking to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The decision also mentions section 230 of the CDA as applicable to Google and MSN. Case is Langdon v. Google Inc.This right to editorial discretion may be questioned in Latin America because under section 14 of the American Convention of Human Rights the right to reply (or to rectify) information is constitutional. However, under this provision, a plaintiff may not be able to force a newspaper or a web site to carry certain ads.