Comments on: Click Fraud Lawsuit–Click Defense v. Google

By: Tech Law Advisor

Tech Law Advisor — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:02:26 +0000

Belly Up: 5 Posts

5 posts I enjoyed from last week in no particular order: Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? by rethink(ip) Wife Humor By Brad Parker Sandra Day O’Connor By William Patry Click…

By: Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:42:11 +0000

Click fraud takes multiple forms, including competitors clicking each other’s ads to drive down their advertising budgets (and perhaps exhaust a competitor’s daily, weekly, or monthly budget, such that their ads no longer appear), and the type of automated click fraud to which jeff alluded (which may involve a very sophisticated program which automatically distributes clicks through thousands of proxies, or the triggering of software embedded by virus/worm in thousands of computers throughout the world).

What I find most interesting about this lawsuit is that the Plaintiff (http://www.clickdefense.com/) describes itself as “The leading ad tracking, optimization and click fraud detection company”. That is, they claim to be victimized by the type of activity they “lead” in detecting. I am left wondering if the lawsuit is more about generating publicity than it is about obtaining an award of damages. (“The complaint alludes to some duties (Paras. 31-33) that Google should track click fraud, warn advertisers about click fraud, and notify advertisers after click fraud occurs. – perhaps they want Google to buy them, because one would think that these are services they offer.)

By: Eric Goldman

Eric Goldman — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 12:29:49 +0000

Note that I didn’t offer my own definition of click fraud; I was happy to work with the definition offered by the plaintiffs. The short answer to your final question is no. Under the plaintiff’s definition, the plaintiffs expect Google to divine intent, and Google gets the same information from a click regardless of whether the click is made manually or via a robot. Eric.

By: John Battelle's Searchblog

John Battelle's Searchblog — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:45:30 +0000

Lots to Catch Up On

Google eyes Baidu….I got a call on this, and honestly have no idea if this is true. But you’ve been reading my opining on China and Google for some time now. Google Toolbar for Firefox coming. Cnet has the scoop. SEW finds an interesting study which…

By: jeff

jeff — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 10:29:55 +0000

Where does robotic activity fit into your definition of click fraud? Its not clear to me that manual clicking can reach high enough numbers to be a major problem, since the “cheater” would have to shuffle IP addresses at the very least. However, putting some trojan-compromised drones to work could generate significant revenue (or drain on your competitor); sort of a distributed denial of service attack in slow motion.

I would expect that this is already being done – look at the energy spent generating comment and wiki spam and click fraud would seem to generate a more certain and larger payday.

Does your analysis of the complaint change if automated click fraud is alleged?

By: The Importance of...

The Importance of... — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:05:27 +0000

Goldman on Click Fraud

Another great post from Eric Goldman, this time on a “click fraud” lawsuit against Google (Click Fraud Lawsuit–Click Defense v. Google).I vacillate between two competing perceptions about click fraud lawsuits. Sometimes I think that Google deserves so…