Google Sued In Second Click Fraud Lawsuit

[Nacho]

Reuters just released news: Google sued over "click fraud" in Web ads (http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh4906 4_2005-06-30_01-45-07_n6t198386_newsml)
SAN FRANCISCO, June 29 (Reuters) - A seller of online marketing tools said on Wednesday it sued Google Inc., charging that the Web search giant has failed to protect users of its advertising program from "click fraud," costing them at least $5 million.

Click Defense Inc. filed its lawsuit, which also seeks class action status, on June 24 in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California.
Aside from the lawsuit, will this lead to serious action by Google and other search engines to provide 100% click fraud guarantee and not any less?

[Chris_D]

Great catch Nacho!

How this pans out will probably determine the future of search marketing as we now know it.

Its interesting that its just Google - rather than Yahoo!/Overture - or Yahoo!/ Overture and Google - who they've decided to target....

[MTWB]

Well maybe that has something to do with the fact that Google apparently pulled all the adverts for click fraud?

This was reported here (http://www.seo-e.com/item-77.htm).

Recent reports (http://www.threadwatch.org/node/2788#comment-16813) suggest that this was just a glitch with google, but it could have something to do with it?

[jpchrysler]

The reason that ClickDefense is targeting Google, I would suspect, is that Google has a much worse problem with Click Fraud. Wherever incentive exists to commit fraud, there will you find fraud.

Incentive exists anytime a company distributes their listings to a huge network of affiliates like Google does with AdSense. As long as they do that, people will continue to try to game them.

That's also why advertisers see such pathetic results from the smaller networks, like Findwhat, Enhance, etc - they deploy across a wide network of affiliates who have incentives to try to print their own money. Sadly, tools exist that allow unsophisticated people to beat Google and Findwhat by creating false clicks and defrauding advertisers.

Google needs to do something to prevent this sort of thing, or its stock price will fall precipitously as advertisers get frustrated.

Click fraud is THE reason, I suspect, why Overture has been slow to release their own contextual product.

[seomike]

I wonder if the courts rule that they will have to issue refunds :D

[jpchrysler]

The funny thing is that right now, Google couldn't offer real refunds because they don't actually know how bad that click fraud is on their network.

They can only write checks to placate advertisers. CD is trying to take it a bit further (and trying to get a little publicity), but I don't think it's a long term winning technique. We've got to work with the search engines. On our network, we control all of the data, so we can effectively monitor and prevent click fraud. We do it every day.

It's not terribly difficult to do - technically it's pretty easy - but the search engines just aren't doing it for either a lack of imagination or an overabundance of greed.

[guido1977ahs]

No matter how sophisticated Google makes their click fraud detection algorithm, it will never stop 100% of click fraud. It's software, not magic. SEM's that insist on opting into Google's content network will always pay for some click fraud, just like every retail shop will always pay for some shoplifting.

[Nacho]

Danny posted a followup blog (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050630-061256.html) on the story and Gary Price tracked down the full text of the complaint filed in the Google click fraud suite.
If you're interested in reading the complaint that Click Defense filed with the U.S. District Court, we've tracked down a copy. It's available here (PDF; 18 pages) (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/pdf/clickdefensevgoogle.pdf).Very well worth a read for those "Invisible Web" searchers.

[AussieWebmaster]

This is getting some quick attention and rightly so. Seems everyone is blogging on this. I put one in too....

[Jeff Martin]

If the suit sticks, I wonder how G will defend itself without divulging any sensitive information (which is pretty much everything if you try to ask them what steps they take against click fraud). I don’t think the "We all have doctorates and big algorithms and hey....were Google." defense is going to work.

How do you convince a jury (mixed with maybe some tech literate folks) that your doing everything you can to fight click fraud, warn advertisers of the potential risks and refund fraudulent clicks without talking about how specifically you do it? Not to mention that you don’t mind taking profits away from your shareholders and that you shouldn’t be subjective to independent auditing.

Not that there was ever a good time to not know if and how much of a fraud problem you have, but with the services out there, even free ones, there’s no excuse for us not to know how big of a problem this represents for us and our clients. We need to be proactive, not reactive.

[jpchrysler]

If CD can demonstrate that Google's clicks are somewhat fraudulent, then a burden falls upon Google to admit whether a) they were essentially negligent in not developing a technology that can monitor sophisticated click fraud or b) they were for all intents and purposes party to the click fraud because they knew that it was occurring and didn't do anything about it.

We know for a fact that click fraud can be done. We know for a fact that we can detect and filter out click fraud that the other networks allow. If it ever gets to court, it wouldn't be terribly hard to demonstrate how Google can be gamed and hold them to some account for it. But to single out Google is a bit disingenuous. The conversion rates speak for themselves - Google traffic is still of a very high quality compared to the smaller search distributors, who are also suffering from click fraud.

But in their cases, perhaps there's no point in kicking horses that are already down and most likely fairly close to being on their way out.

[AussieWebmaster]

As I noted on my blog, this one gets settled out of court. But I think it is the start of a major change to the system.

I have been asking for a phone bill like receipt. Though I know I will be reading a phonebook every month it would be worth it.

Hey there is not hiding... especially now with the CPM model where people can choose by site where ads will be displayed... how many people are going to go straight to the source and buy traffic from the good ones? and yet Google is disclosing all this... so they must have the other side ready to do the same...

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

How this pans out will probably determine the future of search marketing as we now know it.

No, I don't think so - not at all. I did very well on SEO before PPC came around and trust me, I will do just fine after it dies out. Maybe Google and Yahoo would die too if PPC was killed quicly (maybe by a click-bot-in-a-worm type of attack) but I am pretty sure new engines, of some kind, would take over the search ,market - and then I'øll be ready to uptimize, as I have always done.

No, search marketing will not die just because a few greedy PHDs take one concept way to far :)

[AussieWebmaster]

No, I don't think so - not at all. I did very well on SEO before PPC came around and trust me, I will do just fine after it dies out. Maybe Google and Yahoo would die too if PPC was killed quicly (maybe by a click-bot-in-a-worm type of attack) but I am pretty sure new engines, of some kind, would take over the search ,market - and then I'øll be ready to uptimize, as I have always done.

No, search marketing will not die just because a few greedy PHDs take one concept way to far :)
I hope that smiley face meant you were joking....

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I hope that smiley face meant you were joking....

Yes I was - there is in fact a lot more than a few greedy PHDs - they have managers, MBAs and executives of various kinds that are just as greedy too.

I did not joke about the fact that to me they can die out if they want - or rather, if they don't want to do anything serious about the click fraud issues. And trust me, I will still be here doing what I did even before PPC was born even if this mess does eventually kill the major players of today.

[Jeff Martin]

Et Tu Mikkel?

I was just talking a couple of days ago with a journalist and a colleague of mine about how long it would take G to go from "the cool guys with a cool technology" to being subject to the types of treatment larger/public companies get like MS.

Hhmmm...M$....Goog£e

Oh I dont think they are there yet. G is treading water just fine but they need to get out from the click fraud rock before its drags them to the bottom.

[AussieWebmaster]

Still have to go to BLOG as Better Listings In Google as the funniest acronymn of the month.

[sebastian]

yeps. i called this around the first of the year ...not to mention i am one the most vocal people on the board regarding click fraud.

see, i have the luxury of not only being involved in internet and search marketing, but also very technical in nature. i understand PCs and the internet down to the TCP level and click fraud is scary!!!!!

see, click fraud is almost impossible to catch. yea, they can find the newbie script scammers, the adwords clickers and the jealous compititors quite easily; however, it's almost impossible to catch the true pross. the people who know and understand basic packet transfer technology and who possess the skills to hide IPs, travel on spoofed IPs and/or look anonymous as they surf. (and quite honestly can create clicks without even surfing ...more on that later)

for one, Google should never charge a adwords client for a click unless google can capture the IP of that click. I cannot get any of my contacts at google to commit to an answer regarding this - which in itself is shady and sketchy.

let me sa it again: GOOGLE SHOULD NOT CHARGE ADWORDS CUSTOMERS FOR CLICKS UNLESS THEY CAN CAPTURE AN IP.

If adwords rep wants to weigh in here - we are all ears - but don't hold your breath.

I just want this simple concept either confirmed or denied. Is that too much to ask?

Click fraud is going to continue to be a major problem. all you Google stock holders sitting above 300 should sell now and take your massive winnings. This is the beginning of a landslide.

people will soon love to hate the darling Google and it's coming very soon.

...like it or not, watch and see. ...and once again, i'll be here to say i told you so and will eat humble pie if i am wrong.

[krisval]

First of all, of all the PPC companies, I get the highest quality traffic from Google. #2 is Yahoo and the rest well....they are all ripe with fraud. Is this a problem. You bet. I am very hopeful that the outcome of this suit will trickle down to make the 2nd and 3rd tier companies provide real PPC clicks and actually provide a useful service.

[Jenstar]

It is a great publicity stunt for Click Defense as well, since they are claiming their software can spot nearly double the amount of click fraud that many industry specialists say is standard. It is getting picked up all over the place, but I have noticed a few of the articles (as well as blogs) are spinning that Click Defense are "opportunists".

If you read the articles and thought 'Yikes, I better get something that can track my clicks better and make sure I am not being hit with nearly 40% fraudulent clicks too', which of the many services would you choose to go to? I bet Click Defense has had their best business day today by far.

However, as a spin-out of this, it will be interesting to see if Google begins suing more suspended publishers to get money back that was already paid out before they were caught for fraudulent clicks.

Yes, fraudulent clicks do exist, but something strikes me as this being more for publicity than anything else, which I probably wouldn't have thought of if this company hadn't been promoting click fraud detection software in the first place.

[Elisabeth]

It is a great publicity stunt for Click Defense as well, since they are claiming their software can spot nearly double the amount of click fraud that many industry specialists say is standard. ....which of the many services would you choose to go to? I bet Click Defense has had their best business day today by far.



good point, but this yahoo news article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/tech_google_lawsuit_dc;_ylt=AujciRCsd1JOS8MuZiGRxc 8jtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl) also cited Alchemist media & Click Detective as 'rivals', as well as mentioning eQuantative & Doubleclick as having anti-fraud tools available.

it's probably going to be a boom for that entire segment of the market.

[AussieWebmaster]

The industry has been doing okay for the last couple of years... though this may push things a little... would think it is more for the lawyers doing well in class action suits once this breaks.

Had one contact me already today.

[projectphp]

Paragraph three:
Click fraud is not "fraud" as defined under the law. Rather, it is an industry term used to describe the deliberate clicking on Web search ads by users with no plans to do business with the advertiser. Rival companies might employ people or machines to do this because the advertiser has to pay the Web search provider for each click.
Hmmm... So click fraud isn't fraud? I thought we had a discussion on that already, and the consensus then was that it most certainly was legally fraud. Or has my memory gone all Grandpa Simpson on me?

If adwords rep wants to weigh in here - we are all ears - but don't hold your breath.
What about yahoo? Can we get them to talk as well? Or Kanoodle (who, from many comments, appear more affected by this issue).

Click fraud is going to continue to be a major problem. all you Google stock holders sitting above 300 should sell now and take your massive winnings. This is the beginning of a landslide.

people will soon love to hate the darling Google and it's coming very soon.
Man, what is with this industry? Do you get a free tinfoil hat when you sign up?

I used to read an Ad industry publication (it wasn't Dickens I agree, but it was an occupational hazard). I never ever, in any issue read anything by anyone involved in TV commercials that ever bagged their media like that quote. Not once, not ever. IMHO, that comment isn't even as silly as biting the hand that feeds, it is nuking everyone with food!

Everyone, repeat after me: Click fraud will not kill SEM. Especially not if the SEM industry stops pointing fingers, screaming "the sky is falling" and actually starts providing practical solutions, and realistic outcomes.

A realistic outcome starts not with a worse case scenario all PPC is doomed, but identifying what we actually want the PPC providers to do / provide.

And I'll tell you one thing for sure, if I were a click fraud company, I certainly wouldn't be trying to do that. Click fraud kills PPC which leads to what sort of need for Click Fraud detection? Yes, you, at the back, with your hand raised. Did you say none? Correct!

[davidof]

see, i have the luxury of not only being involved in internet and search marketing, but also very technical in nature. i understand PCs and the internet down to the TCP level and click fraud is scary!!!!!

for one, Google should never charge a adwords client for a click unless google can capture the IP of that click.

Hi Sebastian,

Your post doesn't give the impression that you really understand the TCP/IP that well. It is worth considering what happens when you click on a Google ad link.

First off your browser connects to the Google syndication server passing the client ref and advertiser reference in the query string. Google issues a 302 Not Found response with a redirect to the advertisers site and the browser then fetches the advertiser page. All these connections occur using TCP over IP. As this is a session oriented protocol and there is a certain amount of communication set-up including the generation of pseudo-random sequence numbers for the purposes of identifying packets in the converstion the IP addresses must be valid (e.g. resolve to some point where the client can read them) and Google will have a record of where they originated from.

I would also hope that if the TCP connection is broken during the Google conversation phase that Google would not count this as a click (e.g. the client doesn't see the 302 message). But that is another issue.

Now it is possible to spoof TCP/IP connections with false IP address information, but the complexity this for the purposes of generating fake HTTP connections is nigh on impossible - you have to guess the sequence numbering that the server will be using for the TCP conversation and with any modern TCP layer that is a difficult problem. So Google will have the IP address of the client.


There are a number of ways click fraud can operate and Google has either been cavilier or quite naive about it.

The most basic are Cyber-coolies operating out of low wage countries who simply click on a list of ads on websites - either to use up an advertisers budget or to generate revenue for a website. This is probably fairly easy for Google et al. to detect - unusual click patterns from IP addresses in target countries.

You could write a script to generate clicks - but an unusual pattern of usage from a single IP address would be simple for Google to detect.

You could modify your script to use a list of proxies. Now the usage pattern would look more normal - Google would have to identify these proxies and discount clicks originating from them.

I suspect the most sophisticated click fraud is now from zombies. User machines that have been compromised by viruses or worms and which can be controlled and instructed to run script clicking scripts. Again Google could rely on usage patterns outside of what it considers the norm to detect these.

If anyone has other suggestions as to how click fraud can occur I'd be interested.

Regarding the legals - nothing obliges you as an end user to be a genuine buyer of a service when you click on ads. Whether clicking on ads to use a rivals budget or to generate revenues for yourself is illegal will have to wait for the various court cases - I suspect it would be considered fraud by any court in the 1st world.

[Jeff Martin]

A realistic outcome starts not with a worse case scenario all PPC is doomed, but identifying what we actually want the PPC providers to do / provide. That is one of the items being addressed in the first lawsuit. I had the opportunity to meet and listen to Stephen Marouf here in Dallas and I liked one of the possible solutions that he mentioned of using an independant clearinghouse among others.
Click fraud will not kill SEM. Especially not if the SEM industry stops pointing fingers, screaming "the sky is falling" and actually starts providing practical solutions, and realistic outcomes. I think something has to be done about this really, really quickly, because I think, potentially, it threatens our business model.
- Google Chief Financial Officer George Reyes

If there is anybody who says this is not a real problem, they are kidding you.
- John Slade, a product manager with Yahoo.

G and Y! seem to think its a pretty serious issue. Although, I thought it was strange that now G is downplaying click frud and that its not that big of an issue for them. True, right now its a big issue for their advertisers and if enough advertisers decide to hold G (and PPC networks accountable) then it will be a big issue for them once again.

[AussieWebmaster]

Hey if newspaper execs are being arrested, see this article for an example (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4704566). When will the execs at Google and Yahoo be made to do the perp walk?

Knowingly passing along bills that contain fraud is to be part of the fraud conspiracy...

This one is getting good. There are a few movies of the week in the making here.

Rags to riches to prison...

[projectphp]

Knowingly
Wonderful word that. good definitions to... (http://www.google.com/search?q=define:Knowingly)

I think, if that article, which I posted about a while back (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=6398), is your compass on this issue, it needs to be pointed out that the level of complicity, and indeeed the intent, is very, very different from click fraud.

In the case in the article, employees actively participated in the fraud about circultaion numbers. I don't believe anyone has every claimed that Google, Yahoo, Overture et al have built click fraud bots, or helped in their creation. Or did I miss an issue of SEM Tinfoil Hat Monthly?

G and Y! seem to think its a pretty serious issue.
Serious yes. But as with any industry in the world, perception is reality. If it is perceived that click fraud is rampant and deadly, that will cause more issues than any reality.

Just look at Airlines post September 11. That was terrible event. I am not trying to downplay it, but compare the number of flights yearly (8,789,123 (http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2002/bts011_02.html)) with total airline deaths. Compare that to the figures (http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2001/html/chapter_06_table_01_144.html) - showing (http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2003/html/chapter_02/figure_065.html) - something (http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2004/html/chapter_02/figure_09_01.html) - different (http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2001/html/chapter_06_table_01_142.html).

Who here thinks the perception, especially in 2001, was that air travel was safer than road travel?

Perception is reality.

So who creates this perception? If I were to hazard a guess as to who has the most influence over people's perception, I would say the media.

So hands up who has a blog, a newsletter, any form of communication that falls under the modern definition of media? Who influences the mass media?

Is the perception created that PPC is safe, and in fact far more accountable than any other form of media (as indeed it is), or is it that click fraud, and the varying figures of pure fancy that click fraud suppossedly accounts for, is going to kill the golden goose with the egg laying problem?

Now I freely and wholeheartedly admit that I am inherently biased. When it comes to click fraud, I want to pour water on the fire to maintain my own livelihood absolutely. I want, and indeed need, Search engines to be financially viable. Without financially viable SEs, there is no SEO as wella s no PPC, and as I earn my crust doing SEM, maintaining or, heaven forbid, increasing the budget dedicated to SEM is in my biased best interest.

So everything I say is biased. I can deal with that.

But I really can't believe that SEM is in dire trouble. Nor do I beleive that dealing with it by forecasting PPCs death is the best way to deal with what is a serious issue and, yes, a threat to my livelihood. Alarmist responses like "40% of all clicks are click fraud" don't help. Articles on how to spot it do. Statements like PPC is going to die don't solve anything. Discussions of who does it, where how and why may.

I don't believe that I am so far off the mark in saying that click fraud is a issue to be dealt with, rather than a death adder @ SEM's neck. But then, I too stand ready to eat humble pie, humbl;e bread or any other form humble comes in should I be proved wrong. Heck, if I am, and PPC dies, it may be the only meal I get ;) Rest assured, I don't fear a rapid decline in my waistline anytime soon!

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

You could modify your script to use a list of proxies. Now the usage pattern would look more normal - Google would have to identify these proxies and discount clicks originating from them.


Yes, you are right that Google could realively easy discount all proxies but the problem is that it would reduce their revenues dramatically. AOL is for example, technically (as I understand it) a proxy. Do you think they want to discount all AOL clicks? Also, a lot of companies browse through various proxies - want to exclude that as well? If so, they could have done so a long time ago.

Again Google could rely on usage patterns outside of what it considers the norm to detect these.


No, there are several ways you could mimic user behavior to a degree almost 100% impossible for PPCs to detect. Let's just give you one example: If the script at the zombie computer acts on the actions of users - so the script is directed by the behaviour of the human on the machine( off course, without that human ever knowing)


Heck, if I am, and PPC dies, it may be the only meal I get

My best advise to you is think outside the box. Personally I strongly believe that even IF (and thats a very big IF) all the current engines went broke tomorrow I would still be doing pretty well. My skills are not dependand on the current players or business models. I adapt to whatever I have to - just like I always did. And I do it fast. If I look back over the past 8 years of doing SEO dramatic changes is the nature of the game. Don't get stuck :)

[Jenstar]

I was reading more on this last night... am I the only one that finds it a little odd that Click Defense continues to advertise via Adwords? They were in the second "above the serps" position last night and have moved up to the first position this morning.

Now, if I believed a PPC provider had 38% click fraud - and it was so bad I filed a lawsuit - I think the first thing I would have done is ended all my campaigns and taken my business elsewhere.

[seobook]

My best advise to you is think outside the box. Personally I strongly believe that even IF (and thats a very big IF) all the current engines went broke tomorrow I would still be doing pretty well. My skills are not dependand on the current players or business models. I adapt to whatever I have to - just like I always did. And I do it fast. If I look back over the past 8 years of doing SEO dramatic changes is the nature of the game. Don't get stuck :)
it is so easy to get stuck in a rut on the web with biz costs being so low.

I was reading more on this last night... am I the only one that finds it a little odd that Click Defense continues to advertise via Adwords? They were in the second "above the serps" position last night and have moved up to the first position this morning.

Now, if I believed a PPC provider had 38% click fraud - and it was so bad I filed a lawsuit - I think the first thing I would have done is ended all my campaigns and taken my business elsewhere.
that or maybe they could say they were taking a hit for the team and direct the ad at a public service announcement type page, but I think them leaving their ads there is a statement that says in spite of the fraud they know their technology is good enough to make it of no concern, since they think they will win the lawsuit.

[Jenstar]

direct the ad at a public service announcement type page

Nope, definitely not a PSA. It goes to their click fraud detection sales page for their free trial or signing up for their monthly program starting at $29.95.

[seobook]

Nope, definitely not a PSA. It goes to their click fraud detection sales page for their free trial or signing up for their monthly program starting at $29.95.
I know. I checked it out. :rolleyes:

I was saying I think it would have been smart marketing to throw up a PSA type deal though to ride on the coat tails of the release

[AussieWebmaster]

I have been well aware that click fraud exists. We are constantly checking for it and sending all the engines we advertise on our findings for refunds. Occassionally in the case of the smaller greedy engines they have to be dropped as they are no longer cost allowable.

The bottomline is we work on the actual price and test for the Cost of Acquistion.... if our CPA is acceptable even with click fraud being in there (we are realistic enough to klnow we are not catching everything) wer are still buying.

So I imagine Click Defense is able to buy the traffic at a cheap enough cost to still be profitable. That and they now have so many inbound links from all the stories and people have stopping by the site that the law suit was a total win/win situation for them. They have already made back the money in improved SERPs, new customers etc.

[seobook]

That and they now have so many inbound links from all the stories
I didn't link :)

[AussieWebmaster]

I didn't link :)
Neither did I.... hope you are having a great weekend mate.... this is the first time I have been online since Friday night... a first in a long time. Hope you got out of the cave too!!!

Hope the click frauders give it a rest this weekend... though we are upgrading our platform and turned everything off for the weekend!!!!!

[Jenstar]

I didn't link :)

They got no link love from me either :p

[projectphp]

Eric Goldman (an Assistant Professor at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin) weighs in (http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2005/07/click_fraud_law.htm)

Some interesting comments:
Negligence is a tort claim. Every tort requires, as a precondition, that the defendant (Google) owes a legal “duty” to the plaintiffs. Although there are exceptions, parties in a contract generally don’t have tort duties to each other solely due to the contract.

[AussieWebmaster]

Eric Goldman (an Assistant Professor at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin) weighs in (http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2005/07/click_fraud_law.htm)

Some interesting comments:
That is a great find.... great insight.

[Jeff Martin]

I don’t know if much change could come out of this suit, even if part/all of it were granted. The first lawsuit may have a better chance of effecting change.

As long as G is holding all their cards close the vest and not willing to relinquish much information or control then they may find themselves in this difficult spot for some time.

If they took some action, like going with a clearing house that makes an unbiased decision on what is refundable and what isn’t, I think it would help relieve some of the responsibility they are shouldering.

Of course, we would still need a (as in one) definition of click fraud, not the five Google currently has. If G or Y! or MSN (when they get there) would break away and say "Yeah...we'll do that" it could put those not taking similar action in a bad light.

Alas, it usually takes someone who's willing to take a risk to effect change. That...or a disaster.

[Decoder]

When reading this post i can't help but smile, i am not alone.
On my campaign with google for my small business i found out that over 50% of the clicks i pay for are dupes. here are some statistics:

1 IP from a certain ISP (Not AOL and does NOT provide Proxy services) clicks on my ad 53 times!!! another from the same ISP clicks 12, 13 and 11.

After notifying Google Adwords about this fault "Jay" who is supposed to be a specialist emailed me back saying:

"Upon thorough review of your account data, our team was unable to find any
evidence of invalid clicks in your account. The clicks your ads received appear
to be typical of normal user behavior." Signed Jay below.

Note the clicks came from the same IP. I have a list of 50 IPs that repeat clicks over 3 times. about 15 of them are above 10 clicks.

I really am not equipted to battle those guys, the only thing that i can do is post here and ask for you advice. i emailed google with the same information.

Regards,

Tom.

[projectphp]

Full dicslosure: hat tip to Mr Goodman for that one (editted down the quote and ended up deleting thaqt bit, hehe).

[Jeff Martin]

Decoder, I feel for you.

The fact is in the end, for now, the PPC networks can say whatever they want. They could say a click trend doesn't appear fraudulent to them, they could say you were never charged for them, they could say we had a bunch of PhDs look at it but...,etc.

They are holding all the cards (and your money) and we are playing by their rules, although we dont know exactly what all the rules are. Unfortunately the PPC networks don't want to tell us exactly what they are either.

The current system is a complete conflict of interest. In the US we dont allow publicly traded companies to audit themselves and go by "The Honor Rule" because it is a conflict of interest. Even with an auditing system in place we still have our Enrons and Tycos.

I, along with others are eager for fair solution. One that doesnt favor the PPC networks or the advertisers. As bad as these lawsuits are percieved by some they may be the fuse that ignites a change for the best.