Google wins AdWords case in Australia High Court
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A team of lawyers who joined Norton Rose Fulbright from Polsinelli say they were drawn to the firm's global platform
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Lawyers say a ruling concerning liability for trademark infringement could give company directors an easy way out and create litigation uncertainty
The LMG Life Sciences Awards announces the winners for the 5th annual awards
Some US lawyers have strengthened their connections with European firms as they help clients determine whether the UPC will become a 'centre of gravity'
In the latest episode, the team discusses the battle to take control of listed company and IP business Qantm IP, and looks at some recent hiring trends
To mark Mental Health Awareness Week, lawyers explain how they manage their mental health, and how they pluck up the courage to ask themselves difficult questions
IP lawyers unpick a case heard at the CJEU’s Grand Chamber this week that could potentially create a new world for litigation in Europe
A lawyer who replied to a cease-and-desist letter with just two words has shown others how to deal with vexatious infringement allegations
The suggested rule change surrounding terminal disclaimers could ease the burden on defendants, but risks complicating prosecution strategies
Gift this article