The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Sports site sues Facebook for click fraud

RootZoo files class-action complaint

Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner

Amidst a sizable number of online advertisers complaining that Facebook is billing for clicks that never happened, the inevitable class-action lawsuit has made its way to California court.

Sports site RootZoo has accused Facebook of putting a heavy finger on the scale of its pay-per-click (PPC) advertiser program. Facebook's PCC scheme charges advertisers a fixed amount each time a user clicks on their ad. However, RootZoo claims there's been a big discrepancy between the number of clicks it was charged for, and clicks that its own internal tracking software detected.

The filing alleges that Facebook billed the website with 804 click on June 2, 2008 while RootZoo recorded only 300 clicks that day. RootZoo's figures are claimed to have come from "two industry leading software programs that track the number of clicks to its website and where the clicks originated."

In the course of investigating the clicks, RootZoo further claims it found that hundreds of clicks were coming from small towns in the US on a daily basis between April and May 2008, a rate that "would be almost statistically impossible given the distribution of the American population" and RootZoo's history of traffic from Facebook adverts.

The complaint suggests the click fraud is perpetrated by rival sites that want to increase the fees their competitor is paying and to use up their budget of clicks for the day.

Beyond the discrepancy, RootZoo says Facebook doesn't do enough to prevent click fraud shenanigans and doesn't warn advertisers of the potential flaw in its program. It alleges that when advertisers suspect they've become victims of click fraud, Facebook gives them the cold shoulder:

"Facebook has refused to take any action in response to these complaints nor has Facebook made available any of its internal data that would allow advertisers to understand the basis for the clicks on the advertisers' advertisements which Facebook claims to have occurred."

Facebook denies the charges against them, claiming it already has measures in place to prevent the ad scamming.

"We have developed a series of sophisticated systems to detect suspicious clicks and ensure advertisers are not charged for this activity," the company said in a statement. "In addition, we analyze tremendous amounts of data to discern larger click patterns and, in rare cases where this research or other analysis reveals advertisers have been charged for invalid clicks, we have always, and will continue to, issue credits to impacted advertisers."

The lawsuit filed late last week in US District Court for the Northern District of California asks for reimbursement of the allegedly ill-gained charges, unspecified damages, and to bar Facebook from the allegedly "unfair" and "fraudulent" advertising scheme. ®

Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Backup/Recovery

Latest Comments

all click through advertisers are scams

... well in my experience at least.

In at least half of my web site projects i have been tasked with making a click tracking system as stats don't tally up with the charges being claimed.

.. seems to be there needs to be a way to prove the click throughs... in Broadcast (like TV) the broadcaster has to show logs to the advertiser to prove an advert was shown at a given time.

The problem with the web is that the people who rely on click throughs, small sites cannot afford to push google and facebook too far, otherwise they will go broke.

p.s. @AC4 :10.42 - thats fine, but the web will cease to be paid for without advertising so expect a lot less content, bandwidth etc.

0
0

heh

How many visitors a day does stalkerbook get? And these chumps get an entire 300 - 800 clicks a day. Wow that is impressively crap, I'd have expected the proportion of retards clicking on adverts to be higher at stalkerbook.

Thank god advertising appears to be dying, it's fucking annoying and I know I've never clicked on one in my entire t'interweb career.

0
0

stv000@ntlworld.com

I'm sure that in the web based business model for smaller businesses there has to be some modicum of correlation between the name of a company, and it being successful in its chosen field of enterprise.

Perhaps if RootZoo changed its name to something that actually reflected the content that its site carries or provides then it wouldn't have to rely on such desperate advertising strategies such as Facebook.

To me, Root Zoo suggests trees and animals. Not crappy "American Football" stuff (read : a sport for men who are too scared to play rugby).

0
0

More from The Register

 breaking news
BBC-featured call centre slapped with hefty fine for unwanted calls
PPI pests: Swansea-based firm stung for £225k by ICO
Microsoft to open Windows Stores inside 600 Best Buy locations
Product showcases 'must be seen to be believed'
 breaking news
What did the Lehman Brothers implosion look like to a techie?
Insider tells all about the Gnab Gib at Lehmans
 breaking news
The only Waze is Google: Ad giant tipped to gobble map app 'for $1.3bn'
Pac-Man-satnav-ish upstart in bidding war with Apple, Facebook
 breaking news
1-in-10 e-tomes 'are self-published'... most are 'rubbish' says book ed
Publishing man scoffs at go-it-alone writers, ursines still fouling in forests
 breaking news
Facebook RSS reader said to uncloak June 20
Secret event scooped by Scottish developer?
 breaking news
O2 averts strike action over mass Capita outsourcing deal
Details of new agreement not yet released