Comments on: Google Taken to Court by the ACCC http://www.utheguru.com/google-taken-to-court-by-the-accc Not Your Average Geek Wed, 09 Jul 2008 02:18:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Craig http://www.utheguru.com/google-taken-to-court-by-the-accc#comment-1017 Craig Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:09:42 +0000 http://www.utheguru.com/google-taken-to-court-by-the-accc#comment-1017 <blockquote>Google also continues to allegedly fail to “adequately distinguish sponsored links from ‘organic’ search results”, according to an ACCC statement.</blockquote> Even a screen reader for the blind can tell the difference. Maybe the ACCC should cough up the dough to buy a couple. As for <blockquote>The ACCC said that in 2005, sponsored links titled “Kloster Ford” and “Charlestown Toyota” allegedly appeared on Google, but the links allegedly directed users to the Trading Post website.</blockquote> One would have to see the sponsored ads at that time to judge but considering neither "Kloster", "Kloster Ford" nor "Charlestown", "Charlestown Toyota" are registered trademarks, could Google play Internet advertising police even if they wanted to?

Google also continues to allegedly fail to “adequately distinguish sponsored links from ‘organic’ search results”, according to an ACCC statement.

Even a screen reader for the blind can tell the difference. Maybe the ACCC should cough up the dough to buy a couple.

As for

The ACCC said that in 2005, sponsored links titled “Kloster Ford” and “Charlestown Toyota” allegedly appeared on Google, but the links allegedly directed users to the Trading Post website.

One would have to see the sponsored ads at that time to judge but considering neither “Kloster”, “Kloster Ford” nor “Charlestown”, “Charlestown Toyota” are registered trademarks, could Google play Internet advertising police even if they wanted to?

]]>