One of the most unusual types of issues on the internet that give rise to lawsuits is defamation conducted through pay-per-click advertising. While search engines have rules about the content of search engine ads, there have been many instances where allegedly defamatory content has been published through Google Ads or Bing Ads.
There is a likelihood that there may currently be an increasing number of instances where forms of defamation, or promotion of defamatory content, may be conducted through search engine advertising (a.k.a.: SEM, PPC Ads, Paid Search, Search Engine Advertising, Google Ads, Bing Ads, etc). (The Defamation Expert Witness has identified that there is currently a significant rise in the number of searches for Defamation Attorney and Defamation Lawyer, indicating an increased interest in conducting defamation lawsuits.)
Here are a few examples of such cases:
- General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley
General Steel brought a suit against a competitor and former business associates, alleging that the defendants engaged in a targeted digital campaign to ruin its business reputation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants purchased targeted Google AdWords using General Steel’s brand name and terms like “General Steel fraud” or “General Steel lawsuit.” These ads directed search engine traffic to websites containing false, disparaging, and defamatory statements regarding General Steel’s business practices. General Steel sued the ad purchasers directly for common law defamation, trade libel, tortious interference with business relations, and Lanham Act violations.
Outcome: The court ruled in favor of General Steel on its false advertising claims, holding the defendants liable for publishing false and disparaging materials about General Steel. However, regarding the Google AdWords competitive keyword campaign itself, the court ruled in favor of the defendants on the trademark claims. The judge concluded that General Steel failed to prove actionable consumer confusion solely from the keyword-triggered search ads, as steel building buyers are sophisticated purchasers likely to recognize comparative advertising options.
- Ascentive, LLC v. Opinion Corp.
Ascentive, a software developer, sued Opinion Corp (the operator of consumer review platform PissedConsumer.com). Ascentive alleged that Opinion Corp intentionally purchased Google AdWords campaigns using Ascentive’s trademarked business names. The resulting sponsored ads displayed copy designed to lure users to complaint pages that contained allegedly false, unverified, and defamatory consumer reviews. Ascentive sued the platform/advertiser directly for trade libel, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and tortious interference, arguing that buying Google Ads to amplify false disparagement constituted active commercial misconduct rather than neutral hosting.
Outcome: The U.S. District Court denied Ascentive’s request to enjoin Opinion Corp. (PissedConsumer.com) from running targeted Google Ads and maintaining complaint pages. The court held that search engine users looking up software companies would easily recognize a gripe site for what it was and would not believe the false/negative consumer reviews were affiliated with or endorsed by Ascentive. The judge noted that while some of the defendant’s aggressive SEO and Google AdWords tactics might be “troubling or unethical,” they did not meet the legal threshold for trademark infringement, extortion, or trade libel.
- ADT LLC v. Capital Connect, Inc.
ADT alleged that competitors purchased Google AdWords campaigns designed to generate sponsored text ads when consumers searched for ADT. The sponsored ad copy falsely stated or strongly implied that ADT was going out of business, updating its systems, or being acquired, directing consumers to call numbers that connected to competitors’ sales representatives. ADT sued the rival companies directly for commercial disparagement, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and unfair competition for using Google Ads to circulate false statements about ADT’s solvency and operational status.
Outcome: The court issued a preliminary injunction against the competitor and its agents, prohibiting them from using Google AdWords and deceptive sales tactics to misrepresent ADT’s business status. ADT submitted massive amounts of evidence—including hundreds of customer complaints and declarations—showing actual consumer confusion caused by ads implying ADT was closing or being bought out. The court rejected the defendant’s First Amendment defense, ruling that misleading commercial speech and false advertising under the Lanham Act are not protected.
I have consulted in a few cases involving allegations of defamation conducted through paid search advertisements.
If you have a lawsuit involving infringement conducted via Google or Bing’s text ads, also known as PPC Ads or Pay-Per-Click advertising, contact the Pay-Per-Click Expert Witness to explore how we might assist in your litigation.
Recent Comments