« The FTC, Adware Advertising and Badges of Shame | Main | We Hate You, Buy Our Stuff »
December 12, 2005
Click Defense Lawsuit Update
By Eric Goldman
Click Defense v. Google, No. 5:05-cv-02579-RMW (N.D. Cal.).
The Click Defense lawsuit is one of three pending click fraud actions (the other two being the Lane's Gifts and CLRB Hanson Industries LLC cases). After launching the lawsuit with some fanfare in June, Click Defense got "cold feet" and now claims that it wants to concentrate on its core business. This only reinforces the initial suspicion that the lawsuit was principally a publicity stunt. In Click Defense's place, AIT has substituted in as lead plaintiff.
Substantively, on September 14 Click Defense "voluntarily" dismissed its negligence and unjust enrichment claims--an unsurprising outcome given the weakness of those claims. Now, the only standalone claim is breach of contract. Meanwhile, according to Reuters, a hearing on class certification is scheduled for May 2006.
Posted by Eric at December 12, 2005 11:06 AM | Licensing/Contracts , Search Engines
Comments
I find it laughable that a company like Advanced Internet Technologies is concerned about fraud. Take a look at http://www.aitsucks.com to see the kind of shady business practices that THEY are involved in against their own customers.
Posted by: Mike B. ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://blog.ericgoldman.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 4, 2006 08:25 AM
I am sorry but i don't quite undertstand why unjust enrichment claims would fail. Can u please explain it a little bit more?
Posted by: apple13 at March 24, 2006 11:02 AM
Further to my question above, in Electronic Commerce & Law (Volume 10 Number 35), it seems to suggest that the existence of contract between Google and Click Defense makes the claim of unjust enrichment inapplicable because it is an action in quasi-contract only.
I wonder whether the requirement of the absence of contract for unjust enrichment is unique under the US Law. (Is it still the law of US??) Because it seems to me that as long as that the D (Google) is unjustly enriched in the expense of P, P should be entitled to restitution of that amount under the UK law, and therefore the doctrine applies regardless there's a contract between the two. And if so, it seems difficult to say why the claim is weak for all those click fraud cases.
I would like to know whether there's any difference for the unjust enrichment doctrine in US and UK Law. Thanks so much :)
Posted by: apple13 at March 24, 2006 01:13 PM