Feeds

Google settles click fraud case for $90m

US court approves payout

5 things you didn’t know about cloud backup

Google's $90m payout over click fraud has been approved by a US court. Some opponents had claimed that the figure was not high enough to cover losses, but an Arkansas judge has thrown the objection out.

Google will have to pay claimants $4.50 for every $1,000 of advertising they booked with the company. Judge Joe Griffin of Miller County Circuit Court described the settlement as "fair, reasonable and adequate".

Not every company has agreed to the terms of the settlement, but Google told the Associated Press newswire that 19 of its 20 biggest advertisers involved in the case had agreed.

The case began in January 2005 when Lane's Gifts and Collectables took Google to task over its advertising system. It turned into a class action suit and 70 companies joined the case.

Click fraud occurs when an automated programme clicks on a company's adverts, making it look as though a person has clicked from Google to an advertiser's page. Because the advertiser pays for each individual drawn by its ad on Google pages, click fraud can cost advertisers significant sums of money.

The fraud most often takes place when a firm's competitors set up systems to click on its ads to run down its advertising budget. It can even happen if a website publisher clicks on the ad to boost its own revenue.

Google's opponents in the suit claimed compensation because they said Google did not do enough to prevent click fraud taking place.

Google's decision to settle was not unique: Yahoo! settled a similar case in California earlier this year.

The settlement involves credits for more Google advertising for the claimants, who had lobbied for any settlement to be paid in cash.

Google this week announced revisions to its systems that it hopes will make click fraud less common. It says its system allows users to see how many of the clicks through to its site Google believes to be fake. Some industry estimates are reported to put the proportion of clicks that are fake as high as 15 per cent.

Copyright © 2006, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
6 Obvious Reasons Why Facebook Will Ban This Article (Thank God)
Clampdown on clickbait ... and El Reg is OK with this
No, thank you. I will not code for the Caliphate
Some assignments, even the Bongster decline must
Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
Founder (and internet passport fan) now says privacy is precious
TROLL SLAYER Google grabs $1.3 MEEELLION in patent counter-suit
Chocolate Factory hits back at firm for suing customers
Facebook, Google and Instagram 'worse than drugs' says Miley Cyrus
Italian boffins agree with popette's theory that haters are the real wrecking balls
Mozilla's 'Tiles' ads debut in new Firefox nightlies
You can try turning them off and on again
Sit tight, fanbois. Apple's '$400' wearable release slips into early 2015
Sources: time to put in plenty of clock-watching for' iWatch
Facebook to let stalkers unearth buried posts with mobe search
Prepare to HAUNT your pal's back catalogue
prev story

Whitepapers

Endpoint data privacy in the cloud is easier than you think
Innovations in encryption and storage resolve issues of data privacy and key requirements for companies to look for in a solution.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Advanced data protection for your virtualized environments
Find a natural fit for optimizing protection for the often resource-constrained data protection process found in virtual environments.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.