6 ms·

> The highest-yielding ad my publisher has tested so far is the search “Seth Godin The Knot“ I think it would be interesting to see legal action here. I’m not

by amluto 2mo ago

> The highest-yielding ad my publisher has tested so far is the search “Seth Godin The Knot“ I think it would be interesting to see legal action here. I’m not a lawyer, but I feel like there should be at least three ways to go after this: 1. Trademark infringement. If Amazon is using someone’s search that is clearly searching for a specific product, possibly trademarked, it seems inappropriate for them to serve up an ad for a competitor at higher priority than the actual result. 2. Fraud. If I search for a product that Amazon sells and Amazon shows me an ad for a different product first and hides the product I searched for below the fold, they are effectively telling me that they don’t have the product I searched for and possibly that it doesn’t exist. It seems to me that this is deceiving me for commercial gain. 3. Fraud again. If I search for a specific book and Amazon shows me an ad for that book, I think they’re trying to trick me into clicking that ad so they get extra revenue even if I don’t intend to click an ad. (And they’ve defrauded the ad buyer too. Those clicks are bogus. Seth Godin should not be charged for a click when the clicker was searching for the book by a good approximation of its name!) Someone should file the multi-hundred-billion-dollar class actions :)

ryandvm 2mo ago
Burnt myself on this in Google Maps just this week. I had an appointment in my calendar with the location set to "Dr Firstname Lastname, 123 Main St, 12345". I clicked through it into Google Maps and since it had the full address specified I just trusted it. Well, it turned out that the first result was actually an ad for a competing doctor 20 minutes in the wrong direction. To Google's credit, they did drop the "Don't be evil" slogan many years ago...
- qwerpy 2mo ago
  This is egregious. I would be livid if I drove 20 minutes to an ad buyer's location instead of the actual address, after putting in the actual address to google maps. This is completely the opposite of what a map should be doing for you. If you can, use Apple maps for now, although Apple has proudly proclaimed that they will be serving ads in maps soon. I also refuse to use the maps.app.goo.gl short links that google maps always wants to send. They will trap you in the compromised google search ecosystem. Insist on using raw addresses. I will paste in the raw address every time someone in a group chat sends a goo.gl link.
- saulpw 2mo ago
  "to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
- foamswimsuit 2mo ago
  Same! I searched a local pizza place to pick up a pizza I had ordered and took the first result. I searched for the exact name, I saw a picture of pizza, and I hit directions. Halfway there it didn't feel right and I checked. It was Dominoes. I was furious and my pizza sat for an extra 7 minutes.
- calfuris 2mo ago
  I needed directions to a family member's house after she moved. Clicked on her address from the text message, and Google tried to send me to a real estate agent's office instead.
- antonvs 2mo ago
  I would show up at the competing doctor and make things as awkward as possible. They chose to do that ad.
  - SamBam 2mo ago
    Do they even have any idea that their ads are showing up for the specific competing doctor? Isn't Google the one deciding where the ads are most valuable?
    - antonvs 2mo ago
      If they don’t know, showing up and telling them will let them know. If you excuse the effects that people’s actions have because they didn’t realize they were causing them, you guarantee that those effects will never stop.
      - voakbasda 2mo ago
        Yup. If every person that got misdirected by an ad went into the offenders business and raised hell, they would probably decide that it wasn’t worth it.
- bornfreddy 2mo ago
  Ouch. But at least there is OSMand.
andy_ppp 2mo ago
1. If you get banned from Amazon largely this is very bad for business. They can find a reasonable excuse I’m sure! 2. Fraud is a stretch, these things are labelled even if it’s deliberately designed to be difficult to understand. The discovery on this would be fascinating though because I can guarantee you there’s records somewhere of a ticket to make things more deceptive… 3. I don’t think the fraud thing will get you the results you want (I guess this is a slightly ironic statement given what we’re talking about). According to Claude it’s more likely deception under “FTC Act §5” but you can’t directly do this anymore and apparently “Amazon reinstated binding individual arbitration with a class-action waiver in its Conditions of Use, effective 14 August 2026.” So even taking them to court got much much more difficult. I think unfortunately until a different administration (maybe one less motivated by billionaire donors) comes in, we are stuck with this type of practice.
ndiddy 2mo ago
It reminds me of an analogy I read a while ago in an article critiquing keyword based online advertising (can't find the article unfortunately). A restaurant wants to drum up new business, so the owner tasks three employees with handing out flyers with coupons attached. The coupons are marked to identify which employee passed them out, and each week the owner gives a bonus to the employee whose coupons get redeemed the most. Week after week, the same employee keeps getting the bonus. The other two get more and more suspicious. Is he some kind of marketing genius that's able to get tons of people to use his coupons? Finally, they ask him how he does it. He says, "I stand in the waiting area of the restaurant". This guy's publisher is paying Amazon $1/click to show the book to people who are already going to buy the book. It's basically the same thing.
- throwaway2037 2mo ago
  You raise a good point. This phenomenon is well-documented for at least two decades now on Google search. It is common for brands to buy keywords for their own product. Why? If not, competitors will by the same keywords to direct customers away. As I understand, this has existed for more than 20 years and Google has never been sued for it (that I know). Maybe this is just part of a highly competitive online search market. To be clear: I am not saying that I like or agree with this market outcome as a consumer, but I am merely saying it has existed for a long time and gov't regulators don't seem to really care.
  - projektfu 2mo ago
    I don't know how it is for large businesses, but if you're a small business, and you put your own business name as a search keyword for your ad buys, fully half or more of your ad spend will be your existing customers looking for your website, phone number or address. If you stop spending on it, they will still find you, but a competitor will probably show up above you. I am not sure this matters.
    - _gllen 2mo ago
      Depends on what ads are showing and what they are bidding (vs. what you can afford to bid for the marginal traffic) but yes can be very much worth it to pay google's troll toll.
eh_why_not 2mo ago
> Someone should file the multi-hundred-billion-dollar class actions Incidentally, last week Amazon changed their TOS [0] and now all disputes with them are to be resolved via Arbitration; class action waiver when you use their services, etc. [0] https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/amazon-reinstates-binding-arbitration-bars-class-action-lawsuits-2026-08-14/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/amazon-reinstates-b...
- iririririr 2mo ago
  that's only to complain about their service to you, not cases like fraud or copyright infringement, which was the subject here
- m463 2mo ago
  in california you can opt out of binding arbitration within 30 days of signing the contract.
- jonners00 2mo ago
  How long till binding arbitration is meditated by AI?
- poulpy123 2mo ago
  How is it even legal ?
levocardia 2mo ago
The reason this is a thing is that other people can bid on your product (Amazon has an entire sponsored product category for this reason). So the reason for Seth Godin to bid on ads for "Seth Godin The Knot" is to try to crowd out other people bidding on the same term (eg another book on the same topic). Can be smart but you don't have to play this game if you don't want to, and the ACOS will tell you if it's worth playing. Even if you don't bid on those ads your own product will be the first result. It's just whether you want to bid up the price for competitors -- if you don't bid on your own product someone else can come in and buy the ad spots cheaply. Hopefully Seth's publisher knows this?
iririririr 2mo ago
unless the othet sellers are selling counterfeit books, you have zero grounds for any of those. worked in advertisement, and there's legal precedent to allow bidding on competitor brands (for every advertising network joy).
zmmmmm 2mo ago
I don't want any of your arguments to be supported in law. The day someone can sue me because they searched for something on my web site and what they expected didn't come up, my web site is effectively legally prevented from having a search box. The action needed here is anti-trust style / monopoly action. If there were viable competitors it wouldn't matter what Amazon's search box does. The fact the US government is in denial about the whole principle of the need for robust anti-trust / competition enforcement that is the core issue here.
- II2II 2mo ago
  I understand why you are opposed to the arguments and I like the idea of anti-trust action, but ... The anti-trust cases I am familiar with spanned decades. Perhaps it's not a representative sample, yet it also makes sense. Anti-trust basically says they're doing something that is normally legal, but they're abusing their power over the market in a way that makes those actions illegal. You're moving from prosecuting actions to intent. That is a whole lot more difficult to prove. I'm also uncertain how I feel about prosecuting a company just because it is a monopoly. I absolutely hate monopolies, and large monopolies almost certainly got to where they were by illegitimate means. On the other hand, it is difficult to untangle legitimate consumer choice from a monopoly manipulating the market to remove that choice.
  - Multicomp 2mo ago
    > On the other hand, it is difficult to untangle legitimate consumer choice from a monopoly manipulating the market to remove that choice. You said it. I've wondered if the FTC could run through a process like the below to force market evolutions, but I'm certain there's ways to make this into regulatory capture. Assuming we want free markets...and enough regulations to keep particular monopoloy/cartel from capturing a given free market...: 1. Identify the market: who are the suppliers, who are the demanders 2. Ensure the ratio of suppliers to demanders is such that there are lots of options for a given demander across local, regional, national, international search scopes, are there 7+ local options, 7 regional, etc.? 3. Ensure a given market is vigorously moving, meaning there is plenty of distribution between new market entrants and established incumbents, gate a given incumbent to a market to heightened scrutiny after 10 years or X percentage of the market 4. if a market has lock-in/network effects/increasing switching costs, discount the relative number of suppliers based on <some napkin math of weighting switching costs based on how often customers switch, if customers cannot switch on a dime, look very closely to see if those are natural switching costs or unnatural ones> and take actions to force all suppliers to lower switching costs 5. treat the medium to larger businesses with the most initial suspicion and danger for regulatory capture and bribery, and soft touch sole proprietorships, small businesses, and (non-LARP) startups with less than X percentage cash flow or years of operation 6. Somehow get regulatorially captured, so reform this process to catch the new failure mode(s) without losing lessons of the past. Businesses need stable regulatory frameworks to build and thrive, but if they are so stable and so 'cheatable' then businesses become sclerotic dinosaurs who don't adapt to the changing conditions on the ground except to protect themselves and their positions. US GOP members always want to focus on entrepreneur spirits and the power of free markets, but then don't catch when a given market is captured and held by big businesses (see the smartphone maker oligopoly or Luxottica Optical monopoly), probably for corruption/bribery-seeking reasons as much as failure to imagine the negative externalities. US DNC members always want to focus on stopping big businesses and the power of good governance, but then don't catch when a given market is gummed up by so much regulation, the only survivors are those in bed with the government (see the banking and hospital certificate of need cartels or M.I.Complex defense contractors), probably for corruption/bribery-seeking reasons as much as failure to imagine the negative externalities. A given market needs to be closer to buyer beware in the beginning, but as it matures, it needs to discover and stop the incumbents (whoever they may be) so nobody is comfortable to sit around and extract rent or do share buybacks or otherwise be lazy - we get 'efficient' businesses that suffer from MBA / Jack Welch LARPers who immiserate their employeees, vendors, and eventually customers themselves (so called encrapification), the regulators should target those companies for hurting the health of the market by buying out competitors, saddling up with corporate raids, private equity sinking otherwise profitable businesses, and general dangerous financialization.
wat10000 2mo ago
This is terrible behavior and it should be condemned, but I see no reason it should be illegal. There’s no deception in any of this. It’s like going to a store and asking an employee where the Widgets are, and they show you the Doodads instead because they’re more profitable. This is scummy but by no means illegal. The Doodads are labeled as Doodads. The advertisers know where their ads can be shown and under what conditions they’ll be charged for a click. It’s all dickish but it’s not fraud.
- joquarky 2mo ago
  Is this argument applicable to nuisance laws?
  - wat10000 2mo ago
    What nuisance laws are you referring to and how would this argument potentially apply?
attheballot 2mo ago
Can we make a class action lawsuit target multiple storefronts? Apple and Google desperately need to be gently reminded of this less. With a power drill attached dildo. Their searches are trash, first hit is always an ad.
asr 2mo ago
These are creative, but you haven’t thought them through. Do you really want brands to own trademarks on their keywords? So that when, to pick a random example, you search the internet for “1-800 Contacts,” nobody else is allowed to show an ad that says “Hey Amluto! We sell the same thing cheaper!”[1] 2 is just being bad at business. Which is why I’m skeptical it happens. 3, I hate to break it to you, basically happens in every major store you walk into in America. Google “slotting fees.” If you think customers want an alternative, apply to YC! [1] The FTC (on your behalf) sued 1-800 contacts for trying this. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2016/08/ftc-sues-1-800-contacts-charging-it-harms-competition-online-search-advertising-auctions-restricts https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2016/08/...
- m463 2mo ago
  seems they've ruled the practice is ok: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/warby-parker-fends-off-1-800-contacts-keyword-ad-case-us-appeals-court-2024-10-08/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/warby-parker-fends-...
- niccl 2mo ago
  IIRC, at one time, in Aotearoa/New Zealand at least, Coca Cola Amatil (or whoever it is) had trademarked 'Always'. It may have been some other word, but it was definitely a common word. And it wasn't the particular branding, just the word
-0_0- 2mo ago
Australia's competition watchdog sued Google over this about 10 years ago, and lost the case on appeal. Google's winning argument was that it was the ad buyers that were responsible for breaking the law, not Google who were just acting as a conduit. I'm not really convinced these kinds of "we're just the platform" arguments stack up that well anymore when we see the harm these kinds of unregulated platforms have done to society. Unfortunately though the precedent is already set, so it will be fairly had to backtrack.

by amluto 2mo ago

ryandvm 2mo ago

Burnt myself on this in Google Maps just this week. I had an appointment in my calendar with the location set to "Dr Firstname Lastname, 123 Main St, 12345". I clicked through it into Google Maps and since it had the full address specified I just trusted it. Well, it turned out that the first result was actually an ad for a competing doctor 20 minutes in the wrong direction. To Google's credit, they did drop the "Don't be evil" slogan many years ago...

qwerpy 2mo ago
This is egregious. I would be livid if I drove 20 minutes to an ad buyer's location instead of the actual address, after putting in the actual address to google maps. This is completely the opposite of what a map should be doing for you. If you can, use Apple maps for now, although Apple has proudly proclaimed that they will be serving ads in maps soon. I also refuse to use the maps.app.goo.gl short links that google maps always wants to send. They will trap you in the compromised google search ecosystem. Insist on using raw addresses. I will paste in the raw address every time someone in a group chat sends a goo.gl link.
saulpw 2mo ago
"to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
foamswimsuit 2mo ago
Same! I searched a local pizza place to pick up a pizza I had ordered and took the first result. I searched for the exact name, I saw a picture of pizza, and I hit directions. Halfway there it didn't feel right and I checked. It was Dominoes. I was furious and my pizza sat for an extra 7 minutes.
calfuris 2mo ago
I needed directions to a family member's house after she moved. Clicked on her address from the text message, and Google tried to send me to a real estate agent's office instead.
antonvs 2mo ago
I would show up at the competing doctor and make things as awkward as possible. They chose to do that ad.
- SamBam 2mo ago
  Do they even have any idea that their ads are showing up for the specific competing doctor? Isn't Google the one deciding where the ads are most valuable?
  - antonvs 2mo ago
    If they don’t know, showing up and telling them will let them know. If you excuse the effects that people’s actions have because they didn’t realize they were causing them, you guarantee that those effects will never stop.
    - voakbasda 2mo ago
      Yup. If every person that got misdirected by an ad went into the offenders business and raised hell, they would probably decide that it wasn’t worth it.
bornfreddy 2mo ago
Ouch. But at least there is OSMand.

andy_ppp 2mo ago

1. If you get banned from Amazon largely this is very bad for business. They can find a reasonable excuse I’m sure! 2. Fraud is a stretch, these things are labelled even if it’s deliberately designed to be difficult to understand. The discovery on this would be fascinating though because I can guarantee you there’s records somewhere of a ticket to make things more deceptive… 3. I don’t think the fraud thing will get you the results you want (I guess this is a slightly ironic statement given what we’re talking about). According to Claude it’s more likely deception under “FTC Act §5” but you can’t directly do this anymore and apparently “Amazon reinstated binding individual arbitration with a class-action waiver in its Conditions of Use, effective 14 August 2026.” So even taking them to court got much much more difficult. I think unfortunately until a different administration (maybe one less motivated by billionaire donors) comes in, we are stuck with this type of practice.

ndiddy 2mo ago

It reminds me of an analogy I read a while ago in an article critiquing keyword based online advertising (can't find the article unfortunately). A restaurant wants to drum up new business, so the owner tasks three employees with handing out flyers with coupons attached. The coupons are marked to identify which employee passed them out, and each week the owner gives a bonus to the employee whose coupons get redeemed the most. Week after week, the same employee keeps getting the bonus. The other two get more and more suspicious. Is he some kind of marketing genius that's able to get tons of people to use his coupons? Finally, they ask him how he does it. He says, "I stand in the waiting area of the restaurant". This guy's publisher is paying Amazon $1/click to show the book to people who are already going to buy the book. It's basically the same thing.

throwaway2037 2mo ago
You raise a good point. This phenomenon is well-documented for at least two decades now on Google search. It is common for brands to buy keywords for their own product. Why? If not, competitors will by the same keywords to direct customers away. As I understand, this has existed for more than 20 years and Google has never been sued for it (that I know). Maybe this is just part of a highly competitive online search market. To be clear: I am not saying that I like or agree with this market outcome as a consumer, but I am merely saying it has existed for a long time and gov't regulators don't seem to really care.
- projektfu 2mo ago
  I don't know how it is for large businesses, but if you're a small business, and you put your own business name as a search keyword for your ad buys, fully half or more of your ad spend will be your existing customers looking for your website, phone number or address. If you stop spending on it, they will still find you, but a competitor will probably show up above you. I am not sure this matters.
  - _gllen 2mo ago
    Depends on what ads are showing and what they are bidding (vs. what you can afford to bid for the marginal traffic) but yes can be very much worth it to pay google's troll toll.

eh_why_not 2mo ago

> Someone should file the multi-hundred-billion-dollar class actions Incidentally, last week Amazon changed their TOS [0] and now all disputes with them are to be resolved via Arbitration; class action waiver when you use their services, etc. [0] https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/amazon-reinstates-binding-arbitration-bars-class-action-lawsuits-2026-08-14/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/amazon-reinstates-b...

iririririr 2mo ago
that's only to complain about their service to you, not cases like fraud or copyright infringement, which was the subject here
m463 2mo ago
in california you can opt out of binding arbitration within 30 days of signing the contract.
jonners00 2mo ago
How long till binding arbitration is meditated by AI?
poulpy123 2mo ago
How is it even legal ?

levocardia 2mo ago

The reason this is a thing is that other people can bid on your product (Amazon has an entire sponsored product category for this reason). So the reason for Seth Godin to bid on ads for "Seth Godin The Knot" is to try to crowd out other people bidding on the same term (eg another book on the same topic). Can be smart but you don't have to play this game if you don't want to, and the ACOS will tell you if it's worth playing. Even if you don't bid on those ads your own product will be the first result. It's just whether you want to bid up the price for competitors -- if you don't bid on your own product someone else can come in and buy the ad spots cheaply. Hopefully Seth's publisher knows this?

iririririr 2mo ago

unless the othet sellers are selling counterfeit books, you have zero grounds for any of those. worked in advertisement, and there's legal precedent to allow bidding on competitor brands (for every advertising network joy).

zmmmmm 2mo ago

I don't want any of your arguments to be supported in law. The day someone can sue me because they searched for something on my web site and what they expected didn't come up, my web site is effectively legally prevented from having a search box. The action needed here is anti-trust style / monopoly action. If there were viable competitors it wouldn't matter what Amazon's search box does. The fact the US government is in denial about the whole principle of the need for robust anti-trust / competition enforcement that is the core issue here.

II2II 2mo ago
I understand why you are opposed to the arguments and I like the idea of anti-trust action, but ... The anti-trust cases I am familiar with spanned decades. Perhaps it's not a representative sample, yet it also makes sense. Anti-trust basically says they're doing something that is normally legal, but they're abusing their power over the market in a way that makes those actions illegal. You're moving from prosecuting actions to intent. That is a whole lot more difficult to prove. I'm also uncertain how I feel about prosecuting a company just because it is a monopoly. I absolutely hate monopolies, and large monopolies almost certainly got to where they were by illegitimate means. On the other hand, it is difficult to untangle legitimate consumer choice from a monopoly manipulating the market to remove that choice.
- Multicomp 2mo ago
  > On the other hand, it is difficult to untangle legitimate consumer choice from a monopoly manipulating the market to remove that choice. You said it. I've wondered if the FTC could run through a process like the below to force market evolutions, but I'm certain there's ways to make this into regulatory capture. Assuming we want free markets...and enough regulations to keep particular monopoloy/cartel from capturing a given free market...: 1. Identify the market: who are the suppliers, who are the demanders 2. Ensure the ratio of suppliers to demanders is such that there are lots of options for a given demander across local, regional, national, international search scopes, are there 7+ local options, 7 regional, etc.? 3. Ensure a given market is vigorously moving, meaning there is plenty of distribution between new market entrants and established incumbents, gate a given incumbent to a market to heightened scrutiny after 10 years or X percentage of the market 4. if a market has lock-in/network effects/increasing switching costs, discount the relative number of suppliers based on <some napkin math of weighting switching costs based on how often customers switch, if customers cannot switch on a dime, look very closely to see if those are natural switching costs or unnatural ones> and take actions to force all suppliers to lower switching costs 5. treat the medium to larger businesses with the most initial suspicion and danger for regulatory capture and bribery, and soft touch sole proprietorships, small businesses, and (non-LARP) startups with less than X percentage cash flow or years of operation 6. Somehow get regulatorially captured, so reform this process to catch the new failure mode(s) without losing lessons of the past. Businesses need stable regulatory frameworks to build and thrive, but if they are so stable and so 'cheatable' then businesses become sclerotic dinosaurs who don't adapt to the changing conditions on the ground except to protect themselves and their positions. US GOP members always want to focus on entrepreneur spirits and the power of free markets, but then don't catch when a given market is captured and held by big businesses (see the smartphone maker oligopoly or Luxottica Optical monopoly), probably for corruption/bribery-seeking reasons as much as failure to imagine the negative externalities. US DNC members always want to focus on stopping big businesses and the power of good governance, but then don't catch when a given market is gummed up by so much regulation, the only survivors are those in bed with the government (see the banking and hospital certificate of need cartels or M.I.Complex defense contractors), probably for corruption/bribery-seeking reasons as much as failure to imagine the negative externalities. A given market needs to be closer to buyer beware in the beginning, but as it matures, it needs to discover and stop the incumbents (whoever they may be) so nobody is comfortable to sit around and extract rent or do share buybacks or otherwise be lazy - we get 'efficient' businesses that suffer from MBA / Jack Welch LARPers who immiserate their employeees, vendors, and eventually customers themselves (so called encrapification), the regulators should target those companies for hurting the health of the market by buying out competitors, saddling up with corporate raids, private equity sinking otherwise profitable businesses, and general dangerous financialization.

wat10000 2mo ago

This is terrible behavior and it should be condemned, but I see no reason it should be illegal. There’s no deception in any of this. It’s like going to a store and asking an employee where the Widgets are, and they show you the Doodads instead because they’re more profitable. This is scummy but by no means illegal. The Doodads are labeled as Doodads. The advertisers know where their ads can be shown and under what conditions they’ll be charged for a click. It’s all dickish but it’s not fraud.

joquarky 2mo ago
Is this argument applicable to nuisance laws?
- wat10000 2mo ago
  What nuisance laws are you referring to and how would this argument potentially apply?

attheballot 2mo ago

Can we make a class action lawsuit target multiple storefronts? Apple and Google desperately need to be gently reminded of this less. With a power drill attached dildo. Their searches are trash, first hit is always an ad.

asr 2mo ago

These are creative, but you haven’t thought them through. Do you really want brands to own trademarks on their keywords? So that when, to pick a random example, you search the internet for “1-800 Contacts,” nobody else is allowed to show an ad that says “Hey Amluto! We sell the same thing cheaper!”[1] 2 is just being bad at business. Which is why I’m skeptical it happens. 3, I hate to break it to you, basically happens in every major store you walk into in America. Google “slotting fees.” If you think customers want an alternative, apply to YC! [1] The FTC (on your behalf) sued 1-800 contacts for trying this. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2016/08/ftc-sues-1-800-contacts-charging-it-harms-competition-online-search-advertising-auctions-restricts https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2016/08/...

m463 2mo ago
seems they've ruled the practice is ok: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/warby-parker-fends-off-1-800-contacts-keyword-ad-case-us-appeals-court-2024-10-08/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/warby-parker-fends-...
niccl 2mo ago
IIRC, at one time, in Aotearoa/New Zealand at least, Coca Cola Amatil (or whoever it is) had trademarked 'Always'. It may have been some other word, but it was definitely a common word. And it wasn't the particular branding, just the word

-0_0- 2mo ago

Australia's competition watchdog sued Google over this about 10 years ago, and lost the case on appeal. Google's winning argument was that it was the ad buyers that were responsible for breaking the law, not Google who were just acting as a conduit. I'm not really convinced these kinds of "we're just the platform" arguments stack up that well anymore when we see the harm these kinds of unregulated platforms have done to society. Unfortunately though the precedent is already set, so it will be fairly had to backtrack.