3 ms·
Lawsuit time!
by mitxela 2mo ago
Lawsuit time!
- varispeed 2mo agoI would suspect that entities affected don't have money for a lawsuit.
- pottspotts 2mo agoAre most Americans not able to fight an international tech conglomerate at the drop of a hat?
- mitxela 2mo agoEven a failed lawsuit has the potential to cost the company a lot more money than it costs you. If it's small claims court the company has to pay a lawyer hourly to attend as their representative, while you just have to show up and pay the small court fee. If it's big claims court, well, you always have the option to represent yourself, and then you'll probably lose, but at least you won't have spent much money.
- Grombobulous 2mo agoSmall claims court!
- qlte 2mo ago...which Google then wins on appeal, such as in the follow up from an example someone posted above of a "win" in small claims. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-google-bothered-to-ap_b_213176 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-google-bothered-to-ap_b_2...
- Grombobulous 2mo agoIf you lose on appeal perhaps your case wasn’t that strong to begin with. If I were the author if that article I would rest easy knowing that Google blew 5 figures on lawyers to recover $800 and enhance my journalism.
- hn_throwaway_99 2mo agoThis is what class actions are literally for. Yes, I know it sucks that the only people who make money are the lawyers, but it can result in some behavioral change. Google is fine attracting bots when it makes money for itself, but it can clearly detect that bot traffic when it has to pay out. There is likely huge amounts of money in total that Google has collected money from in ad buys but that they could also detect as bots. I would think class action lawyers would be all over this given the total amount of money involved.
- crooked-v 2mo agoUnless, of course, the terms of service require mandatory binding arbitration and bar you from the recourse of the legal system entirely.
- hn_throwaway_99 2mo agoI agree these clauses suck, but consumer mass arbitration is also a thing.
- eadler 2mo agoUntil the terms start including "mass arbitration" provisions limiting consumers ability to even use the psuesocourts the companies force.
- mitxela 2mo agoIt doesn't have to be a class action. In fact it's worse for the defending company if they get 500 separate lawsuits than one class action.
- bluGill 2mo agoProblem is the guy here spent $100 on ads that went to bots, and thus can get his $100 back after spending a million on lawyers.
- ocdtrekkie 2mo agoConsidering the government routinely both decides Google is violating the law but is unwilling to do things to change it, like split apart their ad monopoly, suing them is most likely futile. Better ways to spend your money, like funding competitors.
- mitxela 2mo agoYou still get your money back
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- ventana 2mo agoHere's a quote from their terms and conditions: Governing Law; Venue. All claims arising out of or relating to the AdSense Terms or the Services will be governed by California law, excluding California's conflict of laws rules, and will be litigated exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California, USA, and you and Google consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts. Okay, I do indeed live in Santa Clara County, California, so if I ever get in a situation where I might want to sue Google Ads, I might as well try and see how local courts work, especially if the claim is small enough for the small claims court. For those who do not live here, it might be a prohibitive requirement.