>There is no implicit or explicit, social or legal contract that says if I click an ad that I must then purchase the product. Nor is there any agreement that if

>There is no implicit or explicit, social or legal contract that says if I click an ad that I must then purchase the product. Nor is there any agreement that if I click an ad that I have to be interested in the product. I understand you want to fight ads but your comments (e.g. your usage of "I" as in the "websurfer enduser") are not relevant to this particular WSJ story. In this case, the "click fraud" is the correct label because the website operators (not the websurfer) of ad inventory explicitly agreed to Google's AdX policies.[1][2] Yes, you're right that the end user didn't make an explicit contract. However, the website operator/seller that voluntarily opted into the AdX exchange _did_. Like you, I'm also hypersensitive to Orwellian doublespeak but in this case, your vigilance is misplaced. Your comment (almost verbatim) is more relevant for the AdNauseam thread that's currently on the front page because that _is_ about endusers fighting back with the justification that they didn't agree to any ad Terms-of-Service. [1] see section "Invalid Activity" : https://support.google.com/adxseller/answer/6337462?hl=en https://support.google.com/adxseller/answer/6337462?hl=en [2] see section "Invalid activity" : https://support.google.com/platformspolicy/answer/3013851?visit_id=0-636394301153893013-1438998299&hl=en&rd=1 https://support.google.com/platformspolicy/answer/3013851?vi...