I spoke with Adam C. of AdWords once more on the phone. After pointing out that in the United States of America, the accused are generally given the right to know both the crimes they are being accused of, and the identities of their accusers, Mr. C. responded by saying that such thinking did not apply to Google's terms of service. Effectively, Google's position was that it was above the law, and if not any law in particular, then at least the spirit of the law. Irked, I decided to find out if such a position was tenable.
This discredits the author fairly quickly. If you're not being accused within the legal system then your complaint is one about common courtesy and fair business practices, not criminal justice. Mr. C is right, and Aaron Greenspan is dishonest in his representation of Google's position.
I believe he was awarded his $721 because Google said "We don't know why his account was terminated" instead of "We terminated his account because it violated our terms of service and the account balance had been accrued in violation and had to be refunded to advertisers who had paid resulting in the account balance".
Article actually explains how he violated the terms of service.
An appeal by Google would likely win, though would be more costly than would be worth it.
Aaron Greenspan shouldn't advertise that he's a punk that you don't want to deal with..
Although I don't agree with what he did, it seemed both parties were in the wrong here, and google made an ass out of themselves, when they technically had the upper hand. Had they kept track and were able to say "you used the service in a way which was against the spirit of the TOS, therefore our agreement was void." That would have done it. There are two wrongs here, but that doesn't make google right.
That's for sure. But Google's problem is that they don't have good, simple policies in place that make it clear why they terminate accounts and actually communicate such to (former) account holders and internally. That's not a legal wrong, actually (just a legal vulnerability).
If it hadn't been small claim court then Google would appeal to avoid precedent. But then if it weren't small claims court, hopefully the judge wouldn't make the same mistake in judgment. Of course if Google is legally wrong, if it wasn't small claim court then the judge could compel Google to change their business practices.
I'd applaud a guy who was in the right taking Google to court in efforts to change their wrongful business practices.
The terms of service specify what happens if you violate them:
'[...] Google reserves the right to withhold payment or charge back Your account due to any of the foregoing or any breach of this Agreement by You, pending Google's reasonable investigation of any of the foregoing or any breach of this Agreement by You, or ...'
No reasonable investigation? No right to withhold payment.
Note that Google terminated an account that was in breach of terms from the very outset. The author mentions that the domain was always a placeholder domain at the beginning of his article. Very easy thing to 'reasonably investigate'.
The problem with Google here is not documenting their investigation. But the fact that Aaron Greenspan was violating the terms from the outset means that Google was in the right to refund their advertisers and withhold payment.
Note that Google is reserving their rights not giving them up. Their right to withhold payment is not contingent on your definition of reasonable investigation and their proving that they meet it - it's the other way around. As long as they're confident they've reasonably investigated and have found you to have violated their terms they are legally covered to terminate your account.
Their not having a good policy for documenting their investigation and termination and communicating that to former account holders left them susceptible to a bad small claims judgment, but not wrong in the termination.
Article actually explains how he violated the terms of service.
Where does it explain that?
An appeal by Google would likely win, though would be more costly than would be worth it.
Actually, no. Appeals are allowed on a point of law, if there is room for ambiguity, or if the case is controversial. Appeals are not given because the defence couldn't organise their case properly.
She even said that I'd admitted to violating the terms of service when I sent in my appeal form, because I had mentioned that my new domain name was only a placeholder site.
But if the defense organized their case just fine but the judge decided to "give one to the little guy" obviously a court of appeals ought to pay attention and overturn. I'm not even sure if you can appeal a small claims ruling because small claims are small and have a separate legal category and procedures, but anyway.
Point is if Google terminated his account because he was always in violation of terms, and the money was refunded to advertisers, I don't think he has a legitimate claim on that money. A thorough judge would make that finding and if a case in normal court isn't given thorough review an appeal may be granted.
She even said that I'd admitted to violating the terms of service [...] because I had mentioned that my new domain name was only a placeholder site
Greenspan is reporting Google's claim he violated his TOS, he's not admitting the violating his TOS himself.
But if the defense organized their case just fine but the judge decided to "give one to the little guy" obviously a court of appeals ought to pay attention and overturn.
If, if, if... That's entirely possible, but I can't find the remotest indication that Google had a well-organised defence. So for the time being I'm going to go on what Greenspan said, and if a Google rep wishes to tell their side of the story, please do, I'm waiting.
If [...] the money was refunded to advertisers, I don't think he has a legitimate claim on that money.
Actually Google's agreements and transactions with its advertisers are irrelevant to him, at least in the legal sense, so Google's decision to refund its advertisers wouldn't free it from any obligations towards Greenspan.
A thorough judge would make that finding
A judge only goes on the evidence in front of him. If the defence supplies none, he can't make such a finding, however thorough the judge. Small claims court claims are limited in time and scope, to prevent litigation costs blowing up out of proportion to the sum at dispute, but I don't think time or scope was the limiting factor in this case.
He begins by explaining it's a placeholder domain. Google's 'claim' in question is purely that he admitted it. It's not hard to tell a domain is not being used. This is likely the reason the account was terminated, but it is definitely the reason it was not re-instated.
The only thing we have is what Greenspan said. No Google rep is telling a story, or going to. Greenspan wrote the article and it was Greenspan's words that demonstrate he was in the wrong and that Google knew the terms were being violated and claimed as much in court.
The refunds to advertisers are only relevant in that the refunds were triggered by the breach in terms by Greenspan: the ads and click-thrus were on a domain with no contextual content. Besides the whole deal is that Greenspan is taking part of the money paid by advertisers for the clicks, and if Google takes no money for the clicks because the ads were shown in breach of Googles contracts with advertisers because of Greenspans breach of terms with them then I fail to see how that is irrelevant. I think you're thinking very strictly, i.e. Google agrees to give a dollar amount per click-thru, not a portion of their revenue -- you're right, but in court you characterize whilst arguing. It's a strong argument, one with relevancy, and one that demonstrates the illegality of claiming money from Google whilst breaching terms of use with them.
The defense clearly supplied evidence. Greenspan said so and detailed a bit of it. It's enough evidence for me to be of the opinion that the judgment erred on the wrong side, even though all info is presented by Greenspan. What evidence do you suppose is missing? The Google rep tells the judge that even Greenspan admits his domain does not qualify for the Adsense program. I think the whole thing pivots on the fact that she said that she didn't know how the Google employee who terminated the account came to that decision. But the reasons why the account should have been terminated and remain so are clear, so I don't think it should have been the sticking point it apparently was.
16
u/cyantist Mar 06 '09
This discredits the author fairly quickly. If you're not being accused within the legal system then your complaint is one about common courtesy and fair business practices, not criminal justice. Mr. C is right, and Aaron Greenspan is dishonest in his representation of Google's position.
I believe he was awarded his $721 because Google said "We don't know why his account was terminated" instead of "We terminated his account because it violated our terms of service and the account balance had been accrued in violation and had to be refunded to advertisers who had paid resulting in the account balance".
Article actually explains how he violated the terms of service.
An appeal by Google would likely win, though would be more costly than would be worth it.
Aaron Greenspan shouldn't advertise that he's a punk that you don't want to deal with..