The Click Fraud Class Action

I'm not sure what to make of it either. In the State the representative or "lead" plaintiff has some advantages, one being able to name the legal team. (Or, in many consumer class actions, the law firms scurry for someone who can qualify as lead plaintiff so that firm gets to head the case and get the bigger piece of the fees.)

I had expected to see further down the article a blurb where Advanced named a new team of lawyers. In this case, the they stayed the same, so it is a bit confusing, especially the "cold feet" comment.

I have known many of the really good people at AIT since my time at Kanoodle where I set up AIT's first PPC advertiser referral partnership. It took six months of negotiations and relationship building with them to finally get the deal done. Their main concern was how it would all pan out for their clients. Their clients really support them and their retention ratio is very strong because they listen.

My point in saying the above is that AIT is a large company with over 250,000 hosting clients and tons of domains under management. It's a very strong company with a solid track record and impressive revenues. They will ride this train for their clients sake if for nothing else.

This is a big development in this case. They plaintiff finally is a company that can withstand the long timeframe it will take to win out or settle.

AIT has been managing PPC for their clients for some time and monitoring the quality levels with a cutom solution.

They're just trying to bleed Google's stockholders.

Typical.

Why shouldn't they? There is click fraud, the engines are responsible for collecting revenues off of it, so I say it's about damn time.

Because Google isn't responsible for building this shaky internet architecture that doesn't allow proper authentication and tracking of users, that's why. It is what it is, and you can either play in CPC or not, that's a choice the advertiser can make.

It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, just like drinking, smoking and playing with guns, the risks are known.

However, in my experience they've been reasonably responsive in responding to claims of click fraud and giving refunds with a little proof, but some people would prefer to use the courts instead of common sense.

You get click fraud and don't like it? So stop. Easily fixed.

That said, unlike IncrediBILL, my experiences of reporting click fraud to Google have left me feeling extremely unsatisfied. But you can't please everyone.

- Just like the banks are, when it comes to credit card fraud (unless you violate the written security requirements). I am not exactly sure how the laws work in the US on this but I would think that Google should be responsible in the same way it works with credit cards here - the proof being on THEIR site. If I question ANY credit card transaction the bank have to PROOF that it's valid. Failing to do so will return all my money. If Google (or any other PPC provider) can't proof they actually delivered the service I payed for I should not be charged. It's really that simple in my mind.

Unless the PPC providers find a way to handle this I am afarid they will be forced to by law or local regulations and that may not exactly be the best solution for them. So to Google and the rest, get on with that work and find a sollution we can all accept before it slips out of your hands.

Interesting chap. One of the things he wanted to "get" out of this is a disinterested third party organization who would collect all data from all parties and check for click fraud.

I think that might be a good thing...but it might cause click reports to be slow. However, top level data could be available for anyone who wants to download it. (This data would not be company specific, but could be industry specific.)

I think if this could happen, it might be a good thing. But I'm sure Google is screaming becuase it absolutely doesn't want to give up all that juicy data.

Just like the banks are, when it comes to credit card fraud

That's just not true on any level as it's the MERCHANT that eats the refund, not the banks. The banks are responsible for shoving the refund down the merchants throat and forcibly extracting money from the merchants wallet to hand back to the customer.

I'm not even sure I see the analogy unless it's an MFA site turning a profit from the click fraud which are the ones Google has caught, banned and sometimes sued in the past.

IncrediBILL, you are apparently not familiar with the laws in my country - it IS the banks that have the full responsibility weather or not they can pass it on to the merchant. This is an issue between the bank and the merchants - not me as a user of the credit card. Let's say the merchant has gone out of business? Tuff shit - the bank still have to refund me if they can't prove the transaction was valid

I didn't say the banks weren't legally responsible - they are - but trust me on this that the merchants take it in the shorts as the banks aren't in the habit of giving up money if they don't have to and the bank makes money all the way around. If your credit card is used fraudulently the bank dings the merchant with the refund fraud amount AND a nice $35 chargeback fee, not to mention the merchant lost the original 2% plus transaction fees from the original sale, it's pretty criminal what happens.

However, back to the original topic -

The only reason I feel Google has any responsibility is the haphazard way the AdSense content network is administered. Anyone can sign up once and then put AdSense code anywhere which is why all the made for AdSense junk sites pop up. There's also no controls for the publishers to see if people are being abusive to the ads in real-time unless you get a 3rd party tool to track clicks on AdSense to be able to block abusers, etc. etc.

I think it's the lack of controls they provide that will ultimately be their undoing.

Google are welcome to try and get the money back from the contextual partners (as merchants with credit cards) but it's should just not be my problem as a buyer of their service. I did not by clicks from the contextual partners but from Google. The question is: Who have the obligation to prove it? I think it should be as with credit cards - Google (the PPC provider). If I question if clicks are valid THEY must provide proof that they are valid - or refund me. Exactly like credit cards.

In fact, when it comes to just about any other purchase the responsibility to proof that I got the product I paid for is entirely on the sellers side - just not in PPC marketing. And THAT is whats wrong. Turn it wround and you'll find Google can suddenly do much more to prevent fraudulent clicks - just as the banks do a serious job trying to stop credit card fraud (becaue they are left with the bill!). If only Google did half as much as the banks this problem would be much less serious.

If Google does not soon face up to this I am sure, at least here in Europe, we will soon see new laws put in place to force them to do so. In that case they can either accept it or fuck off.

how would they prove clicks were valid?

This is the whole clickfraud argument with blowsearch again and I'm still not convinced you can do it :)

how would they prove clicks were valid?

First they must provide clear descriptions of what is valid and what is not as part of the terms we sign up to. Next part is just technical and I am sure they can work that out if they want - or are forced to.

The question to me is not so much the ability to validate links but the motivation for doing it. How motivated are they today? Not enough! Would they be more motivated if the responsibility was turned around as we have it with creit cards? Sure! Would that, in the long run, create more trust in PPC as such? YES absolutely!

This would offcourse cut off a small percentage of the PPC providers earnings just as banks now and then loose money on credit card fraud (even though I agree that they ALLWAYS try to get others to pay! hehe) but would the losts be more than what they could face from increased click fraud activities? I don't think so and judging from their current profits they can surely afford it (doing almost as good as the banks!).

Banks, at least here, has been partly forced (by law) and partly volenteered into the system we have today to secure the needed trust in credit cards. I believe this is good for everyone - the banks as well as the consumers. I believe the same is true for PPC providers. I am just not sure they will volentarily move in this direction - we most likely need an adjustment in current laws or regulations. But at least in Europe, that might now be such and unrealistic goal.

The Reuters story continues to spread, confirming my view that there is no shortage of confusion out there. The Register says

That's why they don't have real jobs and work for "The Register"

The only interview I ever gave once was when a neighbor decided to drive him and his entire family off the cliff at the beach a few years back and they misquoted me all to hell.

When they came back asking for more information I told them to piss off since they can't accurately transcribe what I say and turn it into something it wasn't.

Never talk to reporters, just hand them exact pre-written copy and when they muck it up post what you handed them on a blog or smoking gun to discredit their hidden agenda asses.

I have spoke with a number of reporters, many of which based upon their tone and questions seemed to have the article half written (including some of my responses or desired responses) before they talked to me.

I am very suspicous of Advanced Internet Technologies and their business practices. It seems they are not the "holier than thou" company they claim to be. Many stories from current and former customers complaining about fraud from AIT. Visit http://www.aitsucks.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?board=news for all the details.