Google AdSense Sued by Suspended Publisher

She is nuts...

Admit you break the TOS and then complain when your account is banned for breaking the TOS. Her site is rubbish and won't even convert link-bait traffic into revenue.

Bradley denied clicking on the ads except to verify that the advertisers were not selling competing products.

Shows a lack of understanding for the adsense model, if people don't want competing ads they should use affiliate ads.

there's code that allows you to 'test' your ads anyway. maybe she didn't know about it.

google_adtest='on';

Before suing she should have read these:
http://www.yfs1.com/2006/you-too-can-be-banned-from-adsense-with-no-money-down-enquire-within.html
http://www.yfs1.com/2006/you-too-can-be-banned-from-adsense-with-no-money-down-enquire-within-part-2.html

Suing will be a dead horse, there is no way they are going to reinstate ads once lawyers are involved.

BTW, I don't think google_adtest='on'; is well known.

Wake up, Google. It's not about the merits of the case, it's about FRUSTRATED PUBLISHERS. Want evidence of the impact of bad business communications on costs? Take a look at the legal expenses at Google over the past 4 years. The more you alienate the little guys, the more it will cost you, directly or indirectly.

I know at least 3 ways to "test" AdSense and I did not know about adtest='on'. Unless I learn the source, I wouldn't use it either. What does that say? That I'm not "in tune" and I am "out of touch"? Sure it does.

most adsense publishers are neother in tune nore read the t&c. Lets face it most adsense publishers barely understand whats happening - let alone how it works, what click fraud is and why they shouldn't test it by clicking on them.

This woman may be a cooly calculating opportunist or she may be a genuinely clueless publisher who just happens to live in a sue-me culture - I guess we have no way of knowing. 100 hours is way too much but perhaps her layabout IT guy told her that? Perhaps she really does think the sites pretty and she clearly thinks her business is great.

If you don't know about this stuff, whats the natural way to look at the sites which advertise on yours? Exactly. Its stupid but it could happen.

Big businesses get silly lawsuits filed against them all the time. This case will get tossed as soon as a judge looks at it.

I don't see much PR damage here, either. You violate the clear terms of the TOS, and you get tossed from the program. What about that is going to make people think less of Google?

The only irony, and the only news hook, is the one not mentioned - wasn't it Eric Schmidt who told Danny Sullivan that he sometimes clicks on the ads at the Google site just to see if they are working?

I don't see much PR damage here

If anything It's good PR from a adwords point of view. it shows google does pick up on fraudulent clicks and takes action.

How's it work in the US, when she loses will she have to pay google's legal fees?

I had my account terminated thanks to a malicious clicker, yet the reason they gave for termination was that I clicked on my own ads.

While it isn't worth the time or money for me to sue them, I'd love to see them have to provide proof that I clicked on my own ads. I have a feeling if they terminate someone with deep pockets (or with access to a free lawyer) who has been the target of a malicious clicker then they'll be settling out of court.

In the US, each side normally pays its own legal fees. In fairly rare cases, if the case is totally in bad faith and without merit, a judge might order the losing plaintiff to pay the other's sides legal fees, but that's a once in a blue moon kind of thing. This case looks very weak to me, but it usually has to be at least an order of magnitude more ridiculous to get to where fees are awarded.

She will have to pay costs when the case is dismissed, but those are just filing fees, etc., which rarely amount to more than a thousand bucks in a case that will be gone as fast as this one will be.

is an auto-trans botch job by Babelfish or the like.

Has the term "litigation bait" ("lit bait") been established yet?

Thanks raycam