• Save
Google v accc_pr_-_final
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Google v accc_pr_-_final

on

  • 1,082 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,082
Views on SlideShare
468
Embed Views
614

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

5 Embeds 614

http://searchengineland.com 607
http://seorushnow.com 3
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 2
http://www.diffbot.com&_=1360162606694 HTTP 1
http://news.google.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Google v accc_pr_-_final Google v accc_pr_-_final Document Transcript

    • HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA 6 February 2013 GOOGLE INC v AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION [2013] HCA 1Today the High Court unanimously allowed an appeal from a decision of the Full Court of theFederal Court of Australia, in which it was found that Google Inc ("Google") had engaged inmisleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ("the Act")by displaying certain internet search results.The Google search engine displayed two types of search results in response to a users searchrequest: "organic search results" and "sponsored links". Organic search results were links to webpages that were ranked in order of relevance to the search terms entered by the user. A sponsoredlink was a form of advertisement. Each sponsored link was created by, or at the direction of, anadvertiser, who paid Google to display advertising text which directed users to a web site of theadvertisers choosing.The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ("the ACCC") claimed that particularsponsored links displayed by the Google search engine between 2005 and 2008 had conveyedmisleading and deceptive representations. By publishing or displaying those search results, Googlewas said to have contravened s 52 of the Act, which provided that a corporation shall not, in tradeor commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.At first instance, the primary judge found that although the impugned representations weremisleading and deceptive, those representations had not been made by Google. Ordinary andreasonable members of the relevant class of consumers who might be affected by the allegedconduct would have understood that sponsored links were advertisements and would not haveunderstood Google to have endorsed or to have been responsible in any meaningful way for thecontent of those advertisements.The ACCC successfully appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court, which unanimously foundthat Google had itself engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by publishing and displaying thesponsored links. By special leave, Google appealed to the High Court.The High Court unanimously allowed the appeal. Google did not create the sponsored links that itpublished or displayed. Ordinary and reasonable users of the Google search engine would haveunderstood that the representations conveyed by the sponsored links were those of the advertisers,and would not have concluded that Google adopted or endorsed the representations. Accordingly,Google did not engage in conduct that was misleading or deceptive. This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the High Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons. Please direct enquiries to Ben Wickham, Senior Executive Deputy Registrar Telephone: (02) 6270 6893 Email: bwickham@hcourt.gov.au Website: www.hcourt.gov.au