Surf the net for just a bit, and you will have a hard time not seeing miss stay-at-home mom, Mary Steadman and "How A Stay at Home Mom Makes $5700/month on Google." Sites like "hers" and others are chalk full of language like, "Online giant Google has been making people rich overnight." Or, "Google bails out US Taxpayers with $97/hr jobs." And, "The Google opportunity. Work from home from your computer." Those already in the space, can read between the lines, i.e., that Google is not directly involved, that users are becoming affiliates, and that they will have to spend money for traffic. In July, Google published a blog post titled, "How to steer clear of money scams." For all of Google’s great algorithms, the truth is that like most things, it takes a personal experience by someone with the power to do something about it before change occurs. As we’ve talked about before, understanding the marketing ecosystem is not a Google strength. They enable it, but they on the whole don’t understand the nuances, so it does not seem unreasonable that they would have paid little to no attention to companies touting a Google work from home kit.
This story begins in July with a post on the Official Google Blog, in which they say:
We’re seeing disturbing cases in which websites, emails and advertisements claim that you can make large amounts of money from home with very little effort using Google products and services. They’re designed to look like they were written by a regular person, just like you, who stumbled across an amazing opportunity to make their monetary dreams come true. What they don’t tell you clearly is that Google is not affiliated with these sites and that they may add extra charges to your credit card or misuse your personal information…. At Google, we work hard to protect users from these schemes by using a combination of automated and manual tools that remove them from our search index and ad network.
Like the calm before the storm, little came out of Google regarding these ads in the five months after their publishing that post. The quiet doesn’t imply that Google has finished with the space. Far from it actually. Followers of Google’s Blog, will have seen another post on the subject, this one quite recent. Unlike the rather benign post that preceded it, this one, co-authored by a member of their legal team, contains much more serious ramifications, namely Google has filed a lawsuit against one of the floggers. The first sentence of the suit explains exactly what it is about. It reads, "This action seeks to stop a widespread Internet advertising scam that is defrauding the public by misusing the famous Google brand." It continues by saying, "The scam victimizes unsuspecting consumers by prominently displaying the famous GOOGLE mark, by suggesting sponsorship by the plaintiff, Google Inc. (“Google”), and by urging consumers to obtain a kit supposedly showing them how to make money working from home with Google."
The success of the Google themed work from kits are a classic Catch-22. You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If they stay small, they might last, but those running it won’t have a home run. Get too big, and those running it increase the odds of popping up on Google’s radar. Everyone knows it could happen, and they know it should remain somewhat underground, but no one wants someone else to run away with all the profits. So, it becomes the classic race to the bottom, which ends not unexpectedly, with not just the threat of litigation but litigation. is exactly what happened. If there are additional suits, Google doesn’t disclose. On the December 8
blog post, they mention only Pacific WebWorks. In the complaint, that list is expanded to include around fifty or so unknown parties "Does Defendants" (Does the plural for Jane/John Doe). Adds Google in the suit:
Upon information and belief, Defendants engage in the illegal and infringing acts alleged below through an interrelated network of entities that share common ownership, officers, managers, office locations, business and accounting functions. To avoid detection and identification of all those behind the scam, this network includes an ever-changing coterie of websites that utilize the same templates to generate the same fake news stories, fake testimonials, fake blogs and pressure tactics to drive unsuspecting consumers to credit card processing sites like those run by PWW. Because they have operated as a common enterprise, each Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the unlawful and infringing acts alleged below.
Chances are the action would have occurred sooner, but the size of Google worked in the advertisers’ favor. Reading through the suit, they most likely didn’t become aware of the problem because an employee’s mom asked about it; nor did they become aware despite the myriad of searches and activity in their various product help forums. Instead it came from the bottom of the company up, from customer service. And, unlike Zappos where customer service defines its identity, customer feedback does not guide Google. But, enough of the same complaint will spur action. And whether that was the straw that broke the Google camel’s back, we don’t know, but they it was important enough to mention in the suit. "Many have asked Google for a refund or asked Google to cancel the recurring charges, even though Google is not connected to the solicitations." You can almost imagine the phone calls, the confused looks, the notations, and then finally, someone putting the pieces together. Also interesting, at some point in the relatively near future, the term "Google cash" has become black listed for ads, and at least for the machines I’ve checked.
Google v Pacific WebWorks says that at the heart of the matter, "the scheme is a false representation that consumers can participate in a Google-sponsored program that will allow them to make hundreds of dollars a day working at home performing a simple task that requires no particular experience or qualifications." Despite the clear and strong language describing their claim and the context surrounding it, what we can’t judge is its impact. Much of the offending language occurs on the landing pages, and without access to the exhibits, we cannot see how much the suit focuses on the end advertiser/provider. The suit is clearly critical of the end product and price, but it doesn’t seem to separate marketer from offer owner. Ultimately, that could be why the networks have shouldered much of the settlement burden. They too have deniability, but unlike many of the affiliates driving the traffic, the networks have offices that lawyers and agents can find.
Network
