Lawsuit: Google makes billions by failing to properly police rampant 'click fraud' on ads

May 17, 2017 by Ethan Baron, The Mercury News

It may be hard to imagine that an ad offering "Welder b-tonis" - something with no connection to reality - would get clicks from potential customers.

But in a lawsuit claiming Google rakes in billions of dollars from fraudulent clicks, a business owner claims the hits on two nonsensical ads he created show that click fraud is rampant on Google ads.

Google declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Plaintiff Gurminder Singh of Vacaville, Calif., who is seeking class-action status for his suit, said he had been paying Google for online advertising since 2008, but early last year he began to suspect his ads were being "fraudulently manipulated" by third parties. An unusual number of clicks led to no "conversion," or follow-through, such as an online purchase or a call to a business, Singh claimed.

"Plaintiff's suspicions regarding the propriety of the clicks on his AdWords ads were based on an increase in a number of total clicks on each ad coupled with a decrease in the number of attendant conversions associated with the overall increase," the lawsuit said.

Singh said he had started advertising with Google after he learned through his research that the Mountain View digital-advertising powerhouse "promises to protect consumers from fraudulent clicks."

Fake clicks are a problem for advertisers, who get charged by Google according to the number of times an ad is clicked.

Fraudulent clicks may originate from competitors hoping to drive up rivals' costs, or from the owners of websites publishing pay-per-click ads, who make more money the more those ads are clicked.

The lawsuit points toward "click farms" - groups of workers paid very little to click on ads - and "click bots," or software programs that do the clicking.

Google, Singh said in his complaint, told customers that it catches the "vast majority" of invalid clicks, and that fake clicks accounted for fewer than 10 percent of all AdWords hits.

However, he claimed, "Google has a very limited incentive to reduce third-party click fraud, because it, like the third-party website publisher, benefits from each additional click, even if such click is fraudulent."

Google's failure to deal with click fraud "has increased its profits by billions each and every year," Singh claimed.

To test whether there was substance behind his suspicions, Singh designed an experiment in which he twice created both a real ad and a gibberish ad and compared the number of clicks received.

Results for his ad touting "Excellent Graphic Designs Local USA Artist Designs Custom Made Wedding Invites" were compared to those from "Welder b-tonis Welders we'll take your left over B-tonis and produce nice designs."

The real ad got 68 clicks, the fake ad 64, delivering a fraudulent click rate of 48 percent, Singh claimed.

Google, on a web page about invalid clicks, says it uses automated systems to filter them out, and investigates any complaints from advertisers.

"Clicks that are deemed to be invalid by our online monitoring systems are discarded in real time and these discarded clicks are not charged to advertisers," Google says.

"When invalid activity is found through offline analysis and reactive investigation, we mark those clicks as invalid and issue credits to any advertisers affected by this activity."

Singh had filed the lawsuit in July. This month he learned that San Jose U.S. District Court Judge Beth Freeman wasn't going to allow his experiment as evidence. In a hearing May 11 in which Google sought to have the case dismissed, Freeman said she'd never had a case where a plaintiff introduced such an experiment, and that it wouldn't fly in any court, Law360 reported.

Google's lawyer, in attempting to get the case spiked permanently, said none of the company's statements were misleading or deceptive, and that the figure of 10 percent for invalid clicks was based on Google's historical experience, according to Law360.

But Freeman elected to give Singh another chance, saying that in an amended complaint he "could find out how many (invalid-click claims from advertisers) Google processes, and then compare those numbers to experts' estimates to try to determine if a significant portion of click fraud is being passed on to advertisers."

In 2006, Google settled a by agreeing to pay up to $90 million after claims it had, because of , overcharged thousands of advertisers.

Explore further: Pay-per-click advertising lacks controls against fraud

3 shares

Related Stories

Pay-per-click advertising lacks controls against fraud

February 17, 2016

Payment-per-click is one of the most popular pricing models for online advertising, but the rate of click fraud is staggering. In 2014, marketers lost $11.6 billion in advertising because of fraudulent clicks.

Celebs, others buy clicks for social media boost

January 5, 2014

(AP)—Celebrities, businesses and even the State Department have bought bogus Facebook likes, Twitter followers or YouTube viewers from techies who run offshore "click farms," where they tap, tap, tap the thumbs up button, ...

Recommended for you

FCC votes along party lines to end 'net neutrality' (Update)

December 14, 2017

The Federal Communications Commission repealed the Obama-era "net neutrality" rules Thursday, giving internet service providers like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T a free hand to slow or block websites and apps as they see fit ...

US faces moment of truth on 'net neutrality'

December 14, 2017

The acrimonious battle over "net neutrality" in America comes to a head Thursday with a US agency set to vote to roll back rules enacted two years earlier aimed at preventing a "two-speed" internet.

The wet road to fast and stable batteries

December 14, 2017

An international team of scientists—including several researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory—has discovered an anode battery material with superfast charging and stable operation ...

2 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Milou
not rated yet May 17, 2017
Thank you Plaintiff Gurminder Singh of Vacaville, Calif.. We need people like you to keep an eye on these large corporate thieves. I also was suspicious of Google's ads and this is very interesting.
Tech8
not rated yet Jun 15, 2017
It's gone crazy whats going on at Adwords it is some few that are taking top spots on the best keywords, and clicking everything ells that try to move up, they using tools like GoodGoogle. The crazy thing is i told Google adwords but nothing happens. I even told them who is clicking me , but got no reply and he is still up there. I still see GoodGoogle advetising after many years, so Google don't seme care,

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.