Google wins AdWords case in Australia High Court

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Google wins AdWords case in Australia High Court

The Australia High Court has unanimously overturned a lower court’s ruling that Google was responsible for misleading advertisements in its AdWords programme

In today’s Google vs Australian Competition and Consumer Commission decision, the High Court found that Google was merely a publisher and not the author of any of the advertisements in its AdWords programme, which creates sponsored links based on the user’s internet search.

If the user enters a search term for a company or product name, the advert would sometimes be that of a competitor. The content and text accompanying the sponsored link is written by the company advertising on Google.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), a government watchdog, alleged that Google violated section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, which states that “[a] corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive”.

The trial court found that some of the advertisements were misleading but that Google merely communicated the advertisers’ representations. On appeal, the Full Federal Court reversed, finding that “Google’s conduct cannot fairly be described as merely passing on the statements of the advertiser for what they are worth”.

The High Court reversed the Full Federal Court’s decision, stating that “Google did not author the sponsored links; it merely published or displayed, without adoption or endorsement, misleading representations made by advertisers.”

The ACCC had argued that through its keyword-matching technologies, Google had produced the misleading advertisements. The High Court rejected this argument stating that even with Google’s keyword technology, “[t]he automated response which the Google search engine makes to a user's search request by displaying a sponsored link is wholly determined by the keywords and other content of the sponsored link which the advertiser has chosen. Google does not create, in any authorial sense, the sponsored links that it publishes or displays.”

The High Court emphasised that the decision does not go into whether the four underlying adverts in these cases were themselves misleading, but only whether Google’s conduct violated section 52.

Gilbert + Tobin represented Google, while Corrs Chambers Westgarth represented the ACCC.

Last year, software maker Rosetta Stone sued Google in the US, alleging that the AdWords programme infringed its trade mark. The companies eventually settled the dispute.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article