Comments on: Lane’s Gifts Click Fraud Lawsuit Near Settlement

By: Eric Goldman

Eric Goldman — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:23:06 +0000

You’re already in, unless you opted out! Eric.

By: michael shanley

michael shanley — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 14:29:24 +0000

I have spent nearly 10k with google adwords. Once I stopped using Google Adwords, my traffic seemed to be more authentic. I can see more click throughs to other links on my site. Whereas when I was purchasing clicks from Google the traffic seemed to only go to my homepage. How do I get in on this class action suit?

By: Brokerblogger

Brokerblogger — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:14:28 +0000

Thanks, Eric. I agree, but just for clarification purposes, the reason I asked the question is this:

I know it’s just semantics, and it may differ from publisher to publisher, but the 100 year old publishing company that I was contracted to used the term “makegood” only in conjuction with “paper” credits for extra, free advertising. Otherwise, it was a “cash refund”, which they wanted to avoid at all costs.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:57:22 +0000

With a quick search, I didn’t find any legal cases interpreting the term “makegood.” But it has such a well-defined meaning in industry circles that I think most courts would ascribe that technical meaning to the term. Eric.

By: Brokerblogger

Brokerblogger — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:45:47 +0000

Great post and points, Eric.

I am curious, though, if you saw the words “make goods” in a legal document relating to the settlement, or were you just “coining” a phrase?

I have an advertising background which convinces me that if “make goods” become a legal precedent for search engines, it will have two implications that I put in my my blog post of 3/10/05.

By: Paul McNamara

Paul McNamara — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:19:11 +0000

Wish I’d read Eric’s analysis of the Google settlement before offering my own — that the litigious will smell blood — on my Network World blog. His makes more sense, as I noted in a followup item.