ie8 fix

Google admits it ‘keeps revenue’ from illegal UK adverts

By | January 10, 2012, 2:01am PST

Summary: A BBC investigation has found that illegal adverts sold through Google’s advertising programme may eventually be shut down, but the search giant keeps the profit generated.

Google is profiting from adverts for illegal products through its AdWords advertising programme, the BBC has found.

After a lengthy investigation, the BBC discovered adverts for illegal Olympic Games tickets, cannabis, fake ID cards and even fake UK passports could be found on google.co.uk searches.

While adverts were “promptly removed” by Google after they were brought to the company’s attention, the search giant admitted that it keeps any money it makes relating to companies advertising illegal services before they are removed.

But the investigation questions exactly how willing the search giant was to remove such adverts.

If the concept of illegal adverts sounds somewhat familiar, Google recently paid a $500 million penalty to the U.S. Justice Dept. for enabling Canadian pharmacies to target U.S. consumers.

In this case, illegal Olympics tickets were found at the top of searches. These adverts were displayed even after the official sale of tickets was over. The adverts misled the public and could cause consumers to lose money.

But the BBC found that even though adverts are reviewed if they are flagged as illegal, inappropriate, or offensive, Google admitted it retains the revenue it generates from these adverts before they are removed.

Google’s advertising system is largely automated. The company has a “set of policies covering which ads can and cannot show on Google”, enforced by both computers and humans.

Passed in 2006, Section 31 of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act, makes it illegal to sell tickets without authorisation from the London Organising Committee. The maximum penalty fine for reselling tickets was raised last year from £5,000 ($7,700) to £20,000 ($30,900).

Despite this, the adverts relating to illegal Olympics tickets were in some cases Google’s top sponsored link, and remained there for more than a week, even after Scotland Yard’s Metropolitan Police asked Google to remove the advert.

Whether or not British authorities will take the same move as the U.S. Justice Dept. is somewhat unlikely. But the very fact that the company has done this before will send alarm bells ringing.

Google’s own conflict of interest in the advertising business also highlights a deeply flawed problem with how the company operates. While Google did not directly sell the illegal Olympic tickets, a case could be argued that the search giant through its advertising system helped others sell the tickets.

Related:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Zack Whittaker, a criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, Canterbury, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

Disclosure

Zack Whittaker

I worked briefly with Microsoft UK in 2006 but no longer have any connection with the company. Regardless, I remain impartial and unbiased in my views.

I don't hold any stock or shares, investments or industrial secrets in any company, but have signed confidentiality agreements with a number of UK and U.S. organisations, whose names I am not at liberty to disclose.

I was involved with Kent Union, the University of Kent's student union, undertaking voluntary, non-salaried, elected positions between early 2009 and mid-2010.

No other company, body, government department, non-governmental organisation or third sector organisation employs me or pays me a salary in any capacity whatsoever.

As a freelance journalist, whenever expenses are given and taken by a company that is not CBS Interactive, these will be disclosed in each relevant post to ensure transparency.

I currently work with a UK law enforcement unit. Details of which are restricted, but this is an entirely separate position which bears no connection to other work.

(Updated: 23rd October 2011)

Biography

Zack Whittaker

Zack Whittaker, criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, UK, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

After studying criminology at university, though still in his early-20's, he has already had a series unconventional work and voluntary positions. He has worked with researchers studying neurological illnesses like Tourette's syndrome (which he suffers from), has given lectures on the nature of disabilities in the public community, and occasionally ends up speaking on television and radio discussing the events of the day.

He first had academic work published at the age of 22, then still an undergraduate, and has been cited by a wide range of publications: from the Huffington Post, Business Insider, AllThingsDigital, The Atlantic Wire and CBS News.

10
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Google admits it 'keeps revenue' from illegal UK adverts
BlueCollarCritic 16th Jan
@mcfaul@...

Legally the answer is Yes they should return the monies since they were obtained thru illegal actions. But then again how can government argue that Google should return monies obtained thru illegal means when the government lets the banks do this as was the case with the drug money laundering that Wachovia (now owned by Wells Fargo) was found to be involved in a few years back. Never heard of that?

Never heard about a major national Banking Institution being involved in let alone admit to participation in the laundering of drug monies? Don???t be surprised if you???ve never heard about Wachovia???s drug money laundering issues because the media did its dutiful job to keep the news as quite as possible and or downplay the story when being quiet al together was not possible. It does make you wonder though how many other major events do the mainstream media ignore or downplay because of corporate connections.
0 Votes
+ -
What else can they do?
mcfaul@... 10th Jan
I'd say of course they keep the revenue - whats the other option? Refund it back to the criminals who placed the adverts?
@mcfaul@... Exactly what I was thinking.
@mcfaul@... They may be subject to disgorgement (paying back revenues earned by illegal or unethical acts, presumably with interest), but that's generally regarded as a remedy rather than a punishment, and it would probably be at the discretion of any wronged parties.
@Third of Five

and in cases of selling pot etc etc - who are the wronged parties? its just simply illegal? i think it would be very difficult to expect them to compensate people somehow
@mcfaul@...

Screw that force them to donate the proceeds to charity! That would make them stop!
0 Votes
+ -
@mcfaul@... They can donate the money to a charity.
@mcfaul@...

Legally the answer is Yes they should return the monies since they were obtained thru illegal actions. But then again how can government argue that Google should return monies obtained thru illegal means when the government lets the banks do this as was the case with the drug money laundering that Wachovia (now owned by Wells Fargo) was found to be involved in a few years back. Never heard of that?

Never heard about a major national Banking Institution being involved in let alone admit to participation in the laundering of drug monies? Don???t be surprised if you???ve never heard about Wachovia???s drug money laundering issues because the media did its dutiful job to keep the news as quite as possible and or downplay the story when being quiet al together was not possible. It does make you wonder though how many other major events do the mainstream media ignore or downplay because of corporate connections.
Not the first time...

AdWords know well how to approve and then disapprove problematic tactics and products. It happens with Pharma, Diet (health and fitness), biz-opps, downloadable products and more. The same pattern as described here.

http://affiliates.info/category/adwords-ppc
"Google recently paid a $500 million penalty to the U.S. Justice Dept. for enabling Canadian pharmacies to target U.S. consumers." So the US Justice Department was the winner here, extorting money from Google for helping US citizens who are trying to find a low-cost provider for overpriced US medical prescriptions.
Google did not sell or advertise anything illegally. They placed automated ads requested by others. They were made unwilling associates in the illegal activities of others. They fulfilled their task and deserve to be paid.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix