Google Spills its Secret Sauce (Well . . . Sorta)
So Google’s facing an inquiry from the European Commission after accusations of anti-trust. Naturally, Google’s not taking this lying down. On the European Public Policy blog, Matt Cutts responds to allegations of anti-competitive practices by sharing their secret sauce, PageRank. But are they transparent enough?
(Yeah, the link is just the original Stanford paper on Google that discusses the basic principles of PageRank as defined 10 years ago.)
Google outlines all its efforts to help webmasters and increase its transparency, including:
- “Google has continued to publish literally hundreds of research papers over the years. Those papers reveal many of the “secret formulas” for how Google works and document essential infrastructure that Google uses.”
- “In 1999, Sergey Brin participated in the first Search Engine Strategies conference for webmasters.”
- “In 2001, Google became one of the first search engines to engage online at a publisher forum called WebmasterWorld. One representative (GoogleGuy) has posted over 2800 times, while another (AdWordsAdvisor) has posted almost 5000 times.”
- “Google now has over 70 official blogs, including an official webmaster blog specifically to help site owners understand how Google works and help them rank appropriately in our search results.”
- Live webmaster chats and in-person conferences
- Webmaster Tools
Although lots of lawsuits and disgruntled individuals claim that Google is an evil black box, the list of things they’ve done to reach out and help webmasters is impressive (even if a lot of webmasters don’t know about it)—and I just listed things till I got bored.
What do you think? Has Google made enough of an effort to be transparent and helpful? Is this an adequate defense against anti-trust allegations?
Google Buzz Facing Lawsuit from 31 Million Users?
This took a little longer than I thought, but a Florida woman has filed a class action complaint in San Jose federal court alleging that Google Buzz shared personal data without consent.
The legal complaint accuses Google of breaking various electronic communications laws, including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The plaintiff is seeking injunctions to prevent the company from taking similar actions in the future, and unspecified monetary relief.
Eva Hibnick and her legal team–who we won’t name, because clearly they agreed to help her for the glory of suing Google–wants to enjoin the 31.2 million U.S. Gmail users that were duped into revealing their most personal contacts.
Like all lawsuits that involve Google, don’t hold your breath. This thing is likely to be a long, protracted mess, with many appeals and objections. If nothing else, this should add to all the reasons why Google should set its arrogance aside and not assume it knows what’s best for its users.
I suspect, we’ll never see such a clumsy product launch from Google, ever again.
29% of Companies Have a Social Media Policy
Does your company have a formal policy on employee social media usage during the work day (or after)? If not, you’re not alone: a report from employment services firm Manpower shows that only 29% of companies have a formal social media policy in place.
Obviously, far more companies block popular social media sites—another study in October showed that half of all companies block YouTube, Facebook and/or Twitter. But, as Mashable points out, those two stats aren’t mutually exclusive: there’s a difference between a written policy and simply avoiding the issue with blocking sites.
Most companies with a written policy (63%) say that it’s effective. But social media policies can cover much more than just work hours. They can also cover the company’s assets: in a written social media policy, you can establish guidelines for what employees can and can’t mention in social media (trade secrets and insider trading type stuff should be obvious, but isn’t always—and naturally, these rules can go too far, and could become the subject of unlawful termination lawsuits. Woot.).
I’m pro written policies: make it clear that your employees are not to spend work time watching YouTube videos, and enforce it. (Fire them, if that’s the policy.) However, this gets a little trickier when you’re using social media for business purposes, as more and more of us are—and even more tricky when you got on LinkedIn to send a message to get the contact info for a vendor and get sucked into the Q&A for two hours. (Apparently, most workers spend less than 30 minutes a day on social networking sites—which may be why most employers haven’t felt it necessary to come out with formal policies. Yet.)
What do you think? Should companies have formal social media usage policies for employees?
Social Media Lawsuits: Another 2010 Trend?
Tweets appear to be a pretty powerful 140 characters in some areas these days. In fact, based on this story there may be a whole new slice of the legal industry that can be created. Imagine the TV ad at 2 am “Has someone tweeted something about you that isn’t true? Have you suffered damage to your life in general because of a Twitter user with a mean streak? The Law Offices of Twit, Tweet and Twote can help you get your good name back one character at a time.” I just got a shiver up my spine just thinking about that as reality but in this new world order you never know.
I bring this up because it appears that some people are not taking tweets lying down and taking legal action regarding comments. This is not the same as the imitator accounts suits that cropped up last year. This one (unfortunately) involves Kim Kardashian and a diet doctor (I am going to let you insert your own comments here because I don’t want to get sued but it’s so tempting).
The doctor behind the Cookie Diet has sued celebrity Kim Kardashian for allegedly defaming him in on Twitter.
The reality TV star allegedly tweeted in October that Dr. Sanford Siegal was “falsely promoting” that she was on the cookie diet. “Not true! I would never do this unhealthy diet! I do QuickTrim!,” she allegedly said via Twitter. “If this Dr. Siegal is lying about me being on this diet, what else are they lying about? Not cool!”
In a lawsuit filed last week in state court in Florida, Siegal alleges that these statements are false and defamatory. The diet doctor also alleges that Kardashian — who reportedly earns $10,000 per tweet as an endorser — was on QuickTrim’s payroll at the time.
This dust up occurred when the doctor linked to an article about his diet that claimed Ms. Kardashian was using his diet. A cease and desist ensued and the doctor took the link down. Here’s where the ‘pay per tweet’ issue takes center stage in light of recent FCC rules that have gone into effect.
Regardless of whether Siegal can prove libel, the allegations in the case highlight some of the issues the Federal Trade Commission aimed to address with its new blogger rules. The FTC’s new guides, which took effect Dec. 1 (after the alleged Kardashian tweets), state that bloggers should disclose all material connections between themselves and companies whose products they write about.
Kardashian allegedly touted QuickTrim while disparaging the Cookie Diet without disclosing that QuickTrim was paying her, according to Siegal’s lawsuit.
So what’s the law here? You have Kardashian allegedly making money on a tweet but not making note of it. Do the new disclosure rules apply to ‘micro-bloggers’ as well as bloggers? Was the doctor legally responsible for linking to a third party article that was believed to be untrue? Apparently there is no clarity around this because different government agencies may see each situation differently.
Some government agencies might view that link as an endorsement of the article’s content, said Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Center at Santa Clara. In late 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission said in proposed new guidance that companies could be liable for fraud if they link to material created by other publishers that contains false information — even though the federal Communications Decency Act says sites are immune from liability for material created by third parties.
Despite the SEC guidance, Goldman says it’s not at all clear that either courts or government agencies would view the links to news articles on CookieDiet.com as problematic. “We don’t know the answer to the simple question: Are you endorsing content by linking to it?”
So who will win on this one? We may never know. The laws and more importantly their enforcement are so new there is going to be some rough sledding ahead for some social media folks. These matters of law will take time to develop like all other Internet law has. With the economy still stumbling along and the litigious nature of our current society many might start looking for social media opportunities to hit the legal judgment lottery. As a result there may be a run on these kinds of things.
While it will be interesting to watch this may serve as a cautionary event for many in the new world order of the blogosphere and micro-blogsphere alike. Or it may turn out to be a non-event.
Your take?
Amazon Sued Over Defamatory Google AdWords Ads
Here’s a fun Christmas game for you to play.
How many different types of lawsuits can you think of that include Google AdWords? Put your party creative hats on and see what you can come up.
OK, Sellify, you go first!
Sue Amazon over defamatory statements posted in Google AdWords by one of its affiliates?
Wow! That is creative!
And, it’s actually true! Writes Techdirt:
The two main complaints are over trademark violations of buying keywords, and then defamation. Defamation? Yes, because apparently when people do searches on Sellify or some of its related trademarked names, like OneQuality, some of the ads that come up say things like:
Beware of the SCAM Artist
Camcorders at the Best Price
From the Trusted Source
amazon.com
As Mike Masnick points out, this lawsuit is unlikely to go anywhere. Not only is Amazon not actually the appropriate party to sue, but trademark infringements in search ads tend to get bogged down in the courts anyway.
Still, you have to admire the creativity of Sellify. If we were really playing the above game, it would have a good chance of claiming the top prize. 
Search Ad Keyword Lawsuit, Now Over Privacy
We have covered many of the search ad keyword lawsuits aimed between competitors or directly at the search engines in the past. Nowadays, it seems like a new suit around this topic is filed weekly. Typically these suits go after trademark violations and the like, but a new suit is focusing on a [...]
….
Bye Bye, Beacon
As announced last month, Facebook is finally ending its unpopular advertising program, Beacon, through a court settlement. The class action lawsuit settlement only needed judicial approval to make it final. And last week we they got that preliminary approval. Once the deal is good and done, Facebook will officially end Beacon, and pay $9.5M in damages, according to Read Write Web.
Two-thirds of the fine would go toward setting up a non-profit foundation for therapy for people who had surprises ruined by Beacon “projects and initiatives that promote the cause of online privacy, safety and security.” The remaining $3+ M would go to the 19 plaintiffs, who could expect anywhere from $1000 to $15,000 a piece, according to MediaPost, and their lawyers (who could expect $2.7M or more). Hm. Once again, cui bono?
The suit claimed that Beacon’s opt-out option was “inadequate, misleading and deceptive.” Facebook reformed the program to be opt-in, and apologized. Technically, it still exists today, but once this settlement is finalized, the program will end once and for all—and Facebook will be absolved of liability in any other Beacon-based lawsuits.
Hm. Once again, cui bono? Facebook could get out of the suit against them and Blockbuster, and any others, for a cool $9.5M. Sounds like a good deal. Meanwhile, David Johnson of the Digital Media Lawyer Blog says, “Facebook is already required by law to promote the online privacy, safety and security of its users’ information,” and they get to funnel most of the settlement money back into those efforts, through a non-profit.
What do you think? Should the plaintiffs have held out for a better deal for them or is this what lawyers call “cy pres“—as near as possible to an equitable solution, since they can’t place a dollar value on the plaintiffs’ losses?
Facebook Sued for Infringing Patents
Facebook is no stranger to lawsuits. And now they’re being slapped with two more, for allegedly infringing the patents of Japanese company Mekiki and Phoenix Media/Communications, publisher of the Boston Phoenix. Both allege that Facebook’s core social networking capabilities violate their patents.
Mekiki, owners of the Japanese social networking site SamuraiTime.com contends that they have three patents on adding friends of friends as contacts on a social network. The patents, one granted in 2005 and two granted this year, are for a “human relationships registering system.” They’re seeking an injunction to stop Facebook from using their technology.
Tele-Publishing, a subsidiary of Phoenix Media, has an even older—and potentially even more devastating—patent they claim Facebook is infringing on. Filed in 2001, the patent allegedly covers a “computer network and method of creating and sharing a personal page” securely.
Facebook commented on the Phoenix case to TechCrunch, to say that it’s “without merit and will be fought vigorously,” and declined to comment on the Mekiki case.
If these cases have legal merit, either of them could undermine the basis of Facebook’s system (especially the Phoenix case). If the courts uphold Phoenix’s patent claim, Facebook—and all other websites—could no longer allow people to create a profile and share it securely with their friends. (Finding new friends through mutual friends might become harder if Mekiki wins.)
What do you think? Is there any merit to the cases? Does Facebook have anything to worry about?
Social Site Sued for Harvesting Emails
Social site Tagged.com is facing the second big lawsuit over its registration process in as many months. First NY AG Andrew Cuomo (always a popular figure with social networks!) threatened to bring a lawsuit against Tagged for stealing emails and spamming “millions of Americans,” and now two women from California are suing Tagged for stealing their email contacts.
Okay, so maybe that’s not “big,” but it does stand to set a precedent.
In response to the NY AG’s similar accusations, Tagged founder Greg Tseng explained that Tagged’s registration process is abundantly clear, including several screenshots of the registration process (PDF), such as this:
Which could easily support either of these lawsuits, especially since the California case states
Tagged harvested millions of email addresses from the email address books of consumers. Then, using these consumers’ email account credentials, Tagged sent unsolicited advertisements to the harvested email addresses, making the messages appear as if they were invitations to join Tagged sent by persons known to the recipients.
The complaint says that the site also failed to make it clear that the users were registering for the site or sharing their friends’ email addresses (which doesn’t seem to be supported from Tagged’s screenshots of the process), and that these practices violate the federal Stored Communications Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
To date, no social site has been successfully sued for similar practices. Tagged notes that inviting friends is the lifeblood of social sites’ growth, but often the practice is executed in such a way that looks like abuse.
What do you think? Do these examples look like abuse? Will this be enough to get a ruling in court, or will the case be thrown out like the suit against Reunion.com last year?
Facebook Sued for Stifling Competition, Click Fraud
It’s a saga we’re all familiar with by now: create a pretty awesome web service, start a trend, become a media sweetheart, make lots of money (VC or acquisition), get slapped with a lawsuit. Or two. Or fifty billion. Facebook added two more lawsuits to its heap recently: a countersuit from Power.com and a click fraud proceeding.
Facebook filed suit against Power.com in December. Facebook claimed the one-stop social-media aggregator was infringing upon their copyright, violating their TOS and scraping proprietary data. At the time, we weren’t sure whether “proprietary data” included user information.
Power.com finally decided not to take this sitting down. TechCrunch reports that Power.com has now filed a countersuit, claiming Facebook is “unlawfully withholding the data that users own (as stated in Facebook’s own ToS), and is stifling competition by refusing to allow third party services like Power.com to access the data, among other things.”
Facebook also faces legal action from RootZoo, an erstwhile advertiser. After analytics from their Nov 2007-June 2008 campaign varied greatly from Facebook’s reported data, RootZoo requested Facebook’s logs and a refund. Facebook said no to both.
RootZoo’s complaint uses 2 June 2008 as an example of the discrepancies between the two. While Facebook reported 804 clicks on their ads, RootZoo’s analytics programs show 300 clicks from the social networking giant.
While there have been rumblings about Facebook click fraud for some time, this is the first suit in the matter.
What do you think? Does Facebook have anything to worry about from these legal claims against it? Is there anyway to avoid getting slapped with lawsuits once people see you’re making some money?
