SEO News » Tags » Legal

Feeds

5016 items (4491 unread) in 3 feeds

Google (304 unread)

• Official Google Webmaster Central Blog (304 unread)

SEO (4187 unread)

• Emily Chang (334 unread)
• Search Engine Roundtable (3853 unread)

5 items tagged "Legal"

Related tags: in [+], Search [+], Issues [+]

Search Engine Roundtable

• 

  Some ISPs Are Hijacking Searches For Profit

  Fetched: August 8th, 2011, 2:57pm CEST by Barry Schwartz

  Tags:  Legal Issues in Search  

  The New Scientist reports that several ISPs are allegedly hijacking searches conducted on search engines such as Yahoo and Bing and redirecting those users to other sites.

  Let me quote the article to describe what happens:

  The process is highly contentious. A user who searched for "apple" would easily have found the company's store via a search engine, so Apple may be needlessly sharing revenue with Commission Junction and the ISPs. Search engines are also being deprived of traffic intended for them. The ISPs are understood to have stopped redirecting Google search traffic after the company complained to them earlier this year. All the ISPs identified by the Berkeley team redirect some Bing and Yahoo searches.

  The redirection can also produce unwanted results. A user wanting to read an article in The Wall Street Journal, for instance, might search for "wsj"; the redirection system would take them to a page offering subscription deals for the paper. Searches for "kindle" are sent to Amazon, the company that makes the e-book reader of that name. A normal search for the term provides links to Wikipedia, reviews of the device and links to Kindles for sale on eBay.

  This behavior may be considered illegal. A New York law firm filed suit against one of the ISPs and Paxfire, the company reportedly involved in the hijacking.

  It doesn't involved all queries, only specific ones that are mostly brand related. It also seems to only be happening on these ISPs; Cavalier, Cincinnati Bell, Cogent, Frontier, Hughes, IBBS, Insight Broadband, Megapath, Paetec, RCN, Wide Open West, and XO Communication.

  This seems pretty crazy and I am surprised anyone would do this.

  Forum discussion at HighRankings Forums.

  
  

• 

  Advertisers, Publishers & Affiliates Scared Over Proposes California Tax Law

  Posted: March 23rd, 2009, 1:18pm CET by rustybrick

  Tags:  Legal Issues in Search  

  There are two different threads at WebmasterWorld that show publishers, advertisers and affiliate's concern over a new proposed tax law in California.

  The law, as understood in the thread, would potentially tax any seller who using AdWords to market their product or service. Moderator, incrediBILL, explained:

  The conclusion I drew after reading the law is that since AdSense directly refers customers via links, as do the AdWords ads showing in the SERPs, it's therefore theoretically possible that anyone using Google as an advertising vehicle could be subject to CA tax.

  If people advertising in Google are suddenly subject to collecting and paying CA tax then people will most likely stop advertising on Google.

  You can see the details about this tax proposal named AB178 and the hearing won't be until April 13, 2009.

  Some are very skeptical over the bill and they are not worried too much about how it might impact them.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

  Update: 5 Star Affiliate Blog has very good coverage of this concern. Well worth a read.

• 

  Utah Law Passes Ban On Trademarked Search Ads: SEMs Discuss

  Posted: March 10th, 2009, 3:06pm CET by rustybrick

  Tags:  Legal Issues in Search  

  Last week at Search Engine Land, I covered an Eric Goldman story on Utah trying to pass a bill for the third time, on regulating search ads. In short, the bill finally passed in the Utah House (still needs to be approved by Senate) and it holds search advertisers liable for targeting trademarks as keywords. It does not hold the search companies, i.e. Google, Yahoo and Microsoft liable (that bill failed). To see the bill, click here.

  Shorebreak at WebmasterWorld gives a good explanation of the bill:

  This bill, sponsored by 1-800-Contacts, prevents search engines from being able to serve competitive ads if someone searches for a branded/trademarked keyword. So, for example, if someone Google's '1-800-Contacts', Google would not be able to serve LensCrafters' ad, even if Lenscrafter didn't include the brand term in their ad copy.

  Now, most search companies do not allow the trademarked terms to appear in the ad copy, but do allow bidding on many trademarked terms, as long as they are not in the ad copy. There has been a ton of legal precedent in this area already, so that is why Eric Goldman is surprised it finally passed. He said it "barely made it through due to the fierce last-minute lobbying efforts of 1-800 Contacts."

  That being said, some advertisers hate the law and some actually like it. Guess who likes it and who hates it? :)

  Many don't believe this law will last, since e-commerce goes over state boundaries and because geo-targeting capabilities are often not 100%.

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

• 

  State of Washington Sues Search Engine Optimization Firm

  Posted: November 17th, 2008, 4:14pm CET by Tamar Weinberg

  Tags:  Legal Issues in Search  

  NetworkWorld reports that the State of Washington has sued an SEO firm for a variety of infractions, including making claims that they can increase traffic to clients' websites, falsely claiming affiliations with other marketers, making claims that customer service representatives are available for any calls (though they never returned calls), failing to provide refunds, continuing to bill credit cards of customers who have canceled, and failing to register with the Department of Licensing as a commercial telephone solicitor.

  In the past four years, 90 complaints have been lodged against the company, which uses the name Visible.net.

  Is this lawsuit a good thing? A few people are a bit worried. How many SEOs promise a lot but deliver below expectations because competitors overdeliver and the algorithm changes [drastically], despite all that you've done? It can happen. While some say that this is a plea aimed at snake oil sellers, if a client is unhappy with legitimate SEO work, what's to say they won't consider you a snake oil salesman?

  On another note, how come nobody has sued those companies that send you mailers claiming to be your domain registrar and wanting to renew your domain for a few years (at least to my knowledge)? Like these guys. Seriously -- I'm sure there are more than 90 complaints against those people.

  Forum discussion continues at Cre8asite Forums.

• 

  Bigreds Sues Yahoo Over Click-Fraud For $1 Million

  Posted: April 17th, 2008, 2:56pm CEST by rustybrick

  Tags:  Legal Issues in Search  

  Bigreds, an internet retailer has decided to sue Yahoo for $1 million over click fraud starting back in 2002. Yahoo offered Bigreds $17,000 back, but Bigreds wants more and they are suing for over $1 million in damages and penalties.

  I wanted to pull out some of the best comments on this lawsuit, which you can read more about at InformationWeek, from a WebmasterWorld thread:

  Look if you are going to build your billion dollar business around PAYPERCLICK then you should probably have systems, people, backups for the most obvious exploit.

  It's the modern day equivalent of a bank without a safe.

  Um, i'm looking at this site, and I really don't see how any traffic would convert, regardless of whether it's fradulent or not. Sorry Red, but I'm thinking that maybe the lawyers are the only ones that are going to come out ahead here.

  I don't really see the problem with advertisers bringing suits against garbitrage because the advertiser foots the bill for the middle man market they create.

  Decide for yourself...

  Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.