Lawyer sues Google over unfruitful ads

Update at 10:44 a.m. PDT: I added Google's "no comment." Update at 9:50 a.m. PDT: I added more details from the complaint.

Google headquarters in Mountain View, Calif.

(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET News.com)

AttorneyHal K. Levitte has sued Google over ads that cost $136.11 but that allegedly didn't yield any useful results.

The suit was first reported by InformationWeek.

Google placed 202,528 Levitte International ads shown in relation to parked domain pages--Internet addresses that have been registered but that have no Web pages--and 1,009 ads on error pages that can be shown when people type invalid URLs into their browsers, according to the report of the suit. From the ads, Levitte got 668 clicks from the parked pages and 25 clicks from the error pages, but no conversions from any of that into useful business leads.

"Google's conduct is unfair because Google fails to disclose that customers' ads are placed on parked domains and error page sites, and Google does not provide an effective means for customers to preclude those ads from appearing on these sites. In fact, until March 2008, Google provided no means at all for customers to exclude their ads from appearing on these sites," the complaint said.

"Domain and error page ads accounted for approximately 16.2 percent of all clicks on plaintiff's ads during his campaign, yet did not result in a single person completing the online form on the site, or contacting the plaintiff by phone or e-mail," the complaint said.

Google has no comment until it reviews the complaint, said spokesman Jon Murchinson.

Levitte accuses Google of fraud, business code violations, and unjust enrichment in the complaint. The suit was filed Friday in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., and seeks class action status.

The ads cost $136.11, part of a $887.67 Levitte ad campaign on Google that lasted from June 1, 2007, to August 18, 2007, the report said.

The suit seeks compensatory damages, an injunction prohibiting the practices under question, and reimbursement for legal expenses.

[humanssssss]

I spent $50 on Google ads and didn't get any conversion either. I think Google is running a fraud. I would like to put myself on the lawsuit.

[4wight]

You do know that my publishing a comment like that you have actually libelled Google in the eyes of the law, should they choose to go after you - and they can afford better lawyers than you!

[The_Decider]

As idiotic as humanssss is, saying "i think google is running a fraud" is not libel. It is opinion.

[drhamad]

So wait... he admits a large number of people got to his website... and just didn't buy his service? Sounds like our Google overlords provided exactly what they promised.

[JCPayne]

Exactly.. How do we know his website didn't make him look like a crazed lawyer.

[whitewater]

Hahaha. How is it Google's fault that the clickthroughs didn't result in conversions? Sounds like either the ads drew the wrong kind of audience or the landing pages just weren't good enough. But it looks like Levitte got a bunch of free publicity out of the lawsuit, so he can drop it now and know he got his money's worth.

[humanssssss]

Google claimed conversion in their advertisement. That was the impression I was under. They shouldn't advertise conversion. If I knew it was only clickthrough, then I wouldn't be spending $50 to do it because I have enough traffic as it is already, I need people to buy, and that's what Google is advertising.

[Dalkorian]

Explain to us how it's Google's responsibility to sell your wares for you. Really, we'd like to know. The way we (reality-connected people) see it, Google is only responsible for running the ads that you paid for to lead customers to your site. I can't see how they're suddenly responsible for making people buy, I thought that was YOUR responsibility.

[Renegade Knight]

All ads can to is get you noticed. Sales is up to you. Google isn't any different than any other advertiser on the planet in that regard. If you can't get sales from traffic, that's not a Google problem.

[Dark0ne]

You should post your contact info and site URL here since you "forgot" to do so when you were trolling over on the article about the lowlife spammer that got sentenced to prison.

I'd be more than happy to send a few hundred-thousand click-throughs your way.

[Dalkorian]

by Dark0ne July 16, 2008 12:58 PM PDT

You should post your contact info and site URL here since you "forgot" to do so when you were trolling over on the article about the lowlife spammer that got sentenced to prison.

I'd be more than happy to send a few hundred-thousand click-throughs your way.
------------------------------------------------

LOL. Way to call the troll out on it's word. Apparently, trolls aren't smart enough to realize that it's the merchants job to sell wares to the customer and not the customer's job to buy something before leaving. Or the TV stations job to force the customer to buy. Or Google's job, or the customer's friend who recommended the store (likely in anger: )), or ...

I mean for goodness sakes already, the merchant has done enough just creating the store to begin with. Why should the merchant be bothered to try to succeed at it?

[Dave Jones--2008]

Dark0ne, humanssssss"s e-mail address is ****[e-mail]. he replied that if I reply it would cost me $0.30, I don't know how he expects to receive this payment, but I don't have time to "****" with this miserable old man.

[Vegaman_Dan]

You can advertise a trough of water, but you can't make people click.

[ss_Whiplash]

Judging by the design of his home page, this guy is clueless when it comes to the internet.

[The_Decider]

What?

I see you are clueless as well.

[Kalama]

$136.11 .... Ain't quite something for nothing .... I the man has the time to worry about 136 bucks & change ... his business model isn't cutting it ! Does he win any cases ! Maybe he should sue his Law School for telling him he would make a ton of $'s just because he's a lawyer ... Question : "If you go to the beach, and 7 attorneys are buried up to there neck in sand, what's wrong ?" Answer : "Not enough sand !"

[fredtheviking]

Well, I rarely buy when I click a google ad. I like to browse a website and see if they have anything of use. Google gives you more exposure and having traffic is helpful for running a site. If I like your site I make tell my friend about it and it is to your advantage. Conversation are hard to get and there is no one thing that will get you there.

[cupsdell]

He should instead sue the person who made his website. It was very poorly done.

[investment96]

Seeking "reimbursement for legal expenses"... wonder what his hourly rate is?

Hope he loses.

[mwb22]

He got clicks on an ad? I have used the Internet daily for years and I have never click on an ad. Do people really use them??

[patent_attorney_9]

"Do people really use them??"

Ummm... How do you think Google makes money?

[The_Decider]

It is strange but apparently there are people who actually enjoy getting and responding to ads.

The advertising industry did a bang up job brainwashing the masses. Too many lemmings in this country.

I have never clicked on an ad, never bought anything because of an ad, other than an ad announcing a concert or new CD from someone I like and, things I would have bought with or without the ad.

I have not done business with plenty of companies or not buy their products because of an ad.

[catbutt5]

Do any CNET posters actually read the articles before posting their nonsensical rants? Apparently not.
The guy is suing because Google placed his ads on error pages and domain parking sites - places completely irrelevant to his target market.

[cdotspace]

wow, I just posted my comment and then saw yours. Your absolutely correct, I did miss the entire point of the lawsuit.

[cdotspace]

I too tend to judge businesses on their web site. I would never do business with the owner of this site. I really don't think Google has anything to do with this gentleman's problems. I also agree that he should sue the person who did that site, but I'm sure suing your teenager isn't profitable.

[Thomas, David]

Before reading the story, I thought the lawyer was an ambulance chaser. However, after reading the story, there is a very valid, and strong point for suing Google.

No one expects, and until now may not even have suspected, that their advertisements were being "placed" on invalid URLs, empty websites, and non-functioning pages. In many cases, actual placement is not possible, and as one poster mentioned, indicates a form of "click through" instead.

In addition to failure to actually place the ads in a valid location, the advertiser becomes associated with a certain negative experience for the user. This negates any positives the advertiser would hope to gain, and in fact has a greater negative impact then at least two positive ones. This hurts the advertiser's business.

Yeah, the lawyer turns out to have a valid point. However, I'm pretty sure Google will clean this up very quickly to avoid it snowballing into a class action suit.

[patent_attorney_9]

I'm an attorney and Google works very well for my practice... Granted, my firm's website is lightyears ahead of this guy's website. Google's job is to get people to his site, which they are doing -- his job is to get the conversions, which he isn't doing.

[JCPayne]

Dear Judge,

I would like to present to the court my findings that Google is a negligent party because they got me my page hits--- However none of their customers actually purchased my bad services therefore Google should pay me back......

I rest my case...

Wait Judge... Your Honor, why are you laughing?????

[Jimmu411]

I want to place an ad with Google for a website where you can give me lots of money for questionable services. Then if nobody bites, I want to sue Google. I'll represent myself and charge me outrageous fees so I can also get fees from Google, and maybe some punitive damages.... Only problem, what if somebody actually buys my services? Hmmmm. Anybody know a really BAD web developer?

[HarlDelos]

What kind of law does that lawyer practice?

I'm looking for a lawyer. I want to sue Michelin, because I took a girl to the drive-in theatre in 1994, and didn't get laid. Obviously, it was a problem with those doggoned tires

[Dave Jones--2008]

I had the same stupid tires

[humanssssss]

Misrepresentation of clickthrough. If Google put his ads on error pages and the people who click on them goes to his site, there's no conversion people these aren't the targeted audience Google claimed they can get. This is a gross misrepresentation of what they advertise to the general public that their ads are targeted. This is the reason why he didn't get conversion because the audience Google put his ads on are junkies.

And I think I'm in that situation. Google deliberate misrepresent its targeted technology because with a human, it could spot that the ad is targeted or not but with Google targeted technology is not able to yet they sell a product that does not work as advertised.

I want my $50 back.

[Dark0ne]

shut up, troll.

[Dalkorian]

Go tell your mommy that you aren't ready for the internet yet and have her disconnect your computer for you. You should be in school, learning something.

[joebuff75]

i've used Google Adwords on numerous occasion and got a great number of conversions out of it. It's also useful to drive normal traffic to a site... On AdWords there is a setting which lets you choose between Google Search Pages and Google's Content network. When choosing the content network, ads are placed all over the net, including error pages and 3rd party web sites.

I'm wondering which site the attorney tried to advertise:
http://lawbos.com/
http://levitteinternational.com/
or any of his other domains...

His web designer used separate domains for separate pages...

There are some famous photos on the site (such as "Lunch atop a skyscraper" by Charles C. Ebbets). Hopefully the designer got a copyright license to use those images...

[gggg sssss]

and typos - or cant speak english on the bankruptcy page, also auto page

- OK just checked out teh designer - HeE cant speak english either.