4 ms·

In this instance isn't Google guilty of fraud? They put on their website something that defrauds, it being called "search" makes no difference IMHO. Isn't ther

In this instance isn't Google guilty of fraud? They put on their website something that defrauds, it being called "search" makes no difference IMHO. Isn't there in the US a small claims court for the restaurant to seek takedown and compensation for damages?

samtho 4y ago
It will likely be harder than you think to find them. KYC is a joke, a regulatory checkbox that must be ticked to not get in trouble with federal authorities.
- blooalien 4y ago
  > "KYC is a joke, a regulatory checkbox that must be ticked to not get in trouble with federal authorities." Also a law to hoover up more personal information with zero repercussions…
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  You don't need to enforce KYC or a particular verification method by law. Merely making the ad platform liable for any illegal content they get paid to host/serve will make the market resolve the problem immediately.
izacus 4y ago
No, the person creating the fake ad is guilty of fraud. Google is guilty of not verifying it enough. Same as Apple/Google aren't guilty of creating malware apps then it slips through, but the predatory ass who coded the app and published it is. Same as Walmart isn't guilty of poisoning people when they stock a product that's spoiled in production, but merely failing to verify proper credentials set up by regulators. I don't know why so many people here and elsewere refuse to hold people creating predatory/fradulent companies accountable , but instead demand that megacorporations control access to your products instead. Which they repeatedly fail and and exploit to enrich themselves at your expense.
- dTal 4y ago
  I don't follow - you say "Google is guilty of not verifying it enough", then you turn around and say it's bad that people "demand that megacorporations control access to your products". Which is it?
  - izacus 4y ago
    Both. It can be both. Compare to food: it's like demanding that Walmart screen all the food itself to protect you and then you'd screech at Walmart and only Walmart for not making sure Keloggs cereal is healthy while letting the manufacturer off the hook with zero (I repeat, zero, none, null, NADA) consequences for fraud and damage they caused. The way media, HNers and other people behave is creating a situation that's terrible to the extreme. Now, do a thinking experiment: how did we ensure product quality in food/electronics/other parts that DID NOT hang on the fact that Walmart has 100% monopoly on all sales of those products and completely locks out you ability to go to any other store? How did we build a system that holds manufacturer of fradulent good accountable, not the megacorporation doing the distribution?
    - hnbad 4y ago
      Except Walmart has to follow certain standards to ensure the products it sells are legitimate. If they'd literally just accept products from random unmarked vans and put them up for sale, they'd be very much on the line if those products end up being unsafe. Likewise you can't just sell stolen goods even if you don't know they're stolen. They'll be confiscated at best and you'll be charged for fencing stolen goods at worst.
      - izacus 4y ago
        Exactly. Where are those standards for software and content? Remember that we punish the companies that build products against standards first, not just Walmart for stocking them. We also don't trust exclusively just Walmart to set and enforce food safety standards (because that would be problematic for competition wouldn't it)? We have independent standard bodies. And right know we have NOTHING to beat Google (or Apple or anyone) on the head with because there's no standard or rule they've ignored when they allowed this ad to be published.
mcv 4y ago
It certainly sounds like a blatant case of trademark infringement. The scammers are trading under the name of the legitimate restaurant in order to defraud their customers. Sounds like the most blatant case of trademark infringement I've heard of in a long time.
Nextgrid 4y ago
"Fraud" is only really a problem when perpetrated by not-well-connected individuals. When it's done by big companies it's called business.
- BLKNSLVR 4y ago
  Some percentage of the profit from advertising frauds and scams goes towards "lobbying" and "political donations" so that they may continue to freely profit from advertising frauds scams.

samtho 4y ago

It will likely be harder than you think to find them. KYC is a joke, a regulatory checkbox that must be ticked to not get in trouble with federal authorities.

blooalien 4y ago
> "KYC is a joke, a regulatory checkbox that must be ticked to not get in trouble with federal authorities." Also a law to hoover up more personal information with zero repercussions…
Nextgrid 4y ago
You don't need to enforce KYC or a particular verification method by law. Merely making the ad platform liable for any illegal content they get paid to host/serve will make the market resolve the problem immediately.

izacus 4y ago

No, the person creating the fake ad is guilty of fraud. Google is guilty of not verifying it enough. Same as Apple/Google aren't guilty of creating malware apps then it slips through, but the predatory ass who coded the app and published it is. Same as Walmart isn't guilty of poisoning people when they stock a product that's spoiled in production, but merely failing to verify proper credentials set up by regulators. I don't know why so many people here and elsewere refuse to hold people creating predatory/fradulent companies accountable , but instead demand that megacorporations control access to your products instead. Which they repeatedly fail and and exploit to enrich themselves at your expense.

dTal 4y ago
I don't follow - you say "Google is guilty of not verifying it enough", then you turn around and say it's bad that people "demand that megacorporations control access to your products". Which is it?
- izacus 4y ago
  Both. It can be both. Compare to food: it's like demanding that Walmart screen all the food itself to protect you and then you'd screech at Walmart and only Walmart for not making sure Keloggs cereal is healthy while letting the manufacturer off the hook with zero (I repeat, zero, none, null, NADA) consequences for fraud and damage they caused. The way media, HNers and other people behave is creating a situation that's terrible to the extreme. Now, do a thinking experiment: how did we ensure product quality in food/electronics/other parts that DID NOT hang on the fact that Walmart has 100% monopoly on all sales of those products and completely locks out you ability to go to any other store? How did we build a system that holds manufacturer of fradulent good accountable, not the megacorporation doing the distribution?
  - hnbad 4y ago
    Except Walmart has to follow certain standards to ensure the products it sells are legitimate. If they'd literally just accept products from random unmarked vans and put them up for sale, they'd be very much on the line if those products end up being unsafe. Likewise you can't just sell stolen goods even if you don't know they're stolen. They'll be confiscated at best and you'll be charged for fencing stolen goods at worst.
    - izacus 4y ago
      Exactly. Where are those standards for software and content? Remember that we punish the companies that build products against standards first, not just Walmart for stocking them. We also don't trust exclusively just Walmart to set and enforce food safety standards (because that would be problematic for competition wouldn't it)? We have independent standard bodies. And right know we have NOTHING to beat Google (or Apple or anyone) on the head with because there's no standard or rule they've ignored when they allowed this ad to be published.

mcv 4y ago

It certainly sounds like a blatant case of trademark infringement. The scammers are trading under the name of the legitimate restaurant in order to defraud their customers. Sounds like the most blatant case of trademark infringement I've heard of in a long time.

Nextgrid 4y ago

"Fraud" is only really a problem when perpetrated by not-well-connected individuals. When it's done by big companies it's called business.

BLKNSLVR 4y ago
Some percentage of the profit from advertising frauds and scams goes towards "lobbying" and "political donations" so that they may continue to freely profit from advertising frauds scams.