Profiling the Australian Google Consumer: Implications of Search Engine Practices for Consumer Law and Policy
Against the legal backdrop of proceedings against Google in various jurisdictions regarding the layout of its search result page, this article presents the results of a survey of a representative sample of 1014 Australian consumers, investigating their use of the Internet and specifically Google’s search engine, and the implications of these findings for consumer law and policy concerning the operation of search engines. The study is the first of its kind in Australia, despite litigation against Google in this jurisdiction for alleged misleading and deceptive conduct. The survey findings indicate that consumers have a lack of understanding about the operation and origin of the different elements of the Google search engine. In particular, the findings show particular confusion in relation to the operation and origin of Google’s related vertical services. Such confusion seems to be more pronounced among older respondents and those without higher education qualifications, although the survey revealed some more surprising and unexpected results in terms of the demographics of confusion. These findings are important for several reasons. Firstly, they identify and point to a gap in consumer knowledge about Google search that should be addressed, presenting an opportunity for consumer education in this area. Secondly, this research challenges the widely held assumption that the average (Australian) Internet user has a basic understanding about the operation and function of the Google search engine. Thirdly, the results leave open the possibility for further proceedings against Google in Australia on the basis of consumer law, the decision in Google v ACCC notwithstanding. This points to the potential for a more active role for consumer law in the digital ecosystem to address problems emanating from large and powerful platform providers such as Google than it previously has occupied.
KeywordsGoogle Consumer law Consumer policy Trade marks Intermediary liability AdWords Internet advertising
The authors would like to thank Dr Rachel Batty for her research assistance and the participants at the Melbourne Law School Empirical Studies in Trade Marks Junior Scholars Forum (December 2014), Scott Ewing and Nicola Howell for their thoughtful comments. Thanks also to David Bednall, Civilai Leckie and Vicki Huang for their time and assistance in the survey design process. This research was supported by grants from Swinburne Faculty of Health, Arts and Design and Swinburne Faculty of Business & Law.
- Alboukrek, K. (2003). Adapting to a new world of E-commerce: The need for uniform consumer protection in the international electronic marketplace. George Washington International Law Review, 35, 425–460.Google Scholar
- Andrews, L. (2016). We need European regulation of Facebook and Google. openDemocracy. Retrieved from https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/leighton-andrews/we-need-european-regulation-of-facebook-and-google
- Coorey, A. (2016). The ACCC, the internet and extraterritorial injunctions. Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law, 24, 214–221.Google Scholar
- Daly, A. (2014). Dominating search: Google before the law. In R. König & M. Rasch (Eds.), Society of the Query Reader: Reflections on web search (pp. 86–104). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.Google Scholar
- Daly, A. (2016). Private power, online information flows and EU law: Mind the gap. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
- Digital Summit. (2015) Google Maintain their Stranglehold over the Australian Search Engine Market in 2014. January 9. Retrieved from http://www.digitalsummit2013.com.au/google-maintain-their-stranglehold-over-the-australian-search-engine-market-in-2014/.
- Drexl, J. (2017). Economic efficiency versus democracy: On the potential role of competition policy in regulating digital Markets in Times of post-truth politics. In D. Gerard & I. Lianos (Eds.), Competition Policy: Between Equity and Efficiency (forthcoming). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Elkin-Koren, N., & Salzberger, E. (2004). Law and economics of cyberspace: The effects of cyberspace on the economic analysis of law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
- eMarketer. (2016). Digital ad spending to surpass TV next year.Google Scholar
- European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS). (2014). Privacy and competitiveness in the age of big data: The interplay between data protection, competition law and consumer protection in the Digital Economy. Preliminary Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor. March 2014. Brussels. Retrieved from https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2014/14-03-26_competitition_law_big_data_EN.pdf
- European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS). (2016). EDPS Opinion on coherent enforcement of fundamental rights in the age of big data. Opinion 8/2016. Brussels. Retrieved from https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2016/16-09-23_BigData_opinion_EN.pdf
- Ewing, S., van der Nagel, E., & Thomas, J. (2014). CCi digital futures 2014 The Internet in Australia. Policy Report. Melbourne: ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation Swinburne University of Technology. Retrived from http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/swin:41844/SOURCE1
- Federal Trade Commission. (2012). Google will pay $22.5 million to settle FTC charges it misrepresented privacy assurances to users of Apple’s Safari Internet Browser. Washington DC. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/google-will-pay-225-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-misrepresented
- Federal Trade Commission. (2013a). FTC consumer protection staff updates agency’s guidance to search engine industry on the need to distinguish between advertisements and search results. Washington DC. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/06/ftc-consumer-protection-staff-updates-agencys-guidance-search
- Federal Trade Commission. (2013b). Statement of the Federal Trade Commission regarding Google’s search practices In the matter of Google inc. FTC File Number 111–0163. Washington, DC. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/295971/130103googlesearchstmtofcomm.pdf.
- Fisher, D. (2015). Google Books survives copyright challenge as fair use. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2015/10/16/google-books-survives-copyright-challenge-as-fair-use/
- Floridi, L. (2016). Fake news and a 400-year-old problem: We need to resolve the ‘post-truth’ crisis. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/29/fake-news-echo-chamber-ethics-infosphere-internet-digital
- Franklyn, D. J., & Hyman, D. A. (2013a). Trademarks as search engine keywords: Much ado about something? Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 26(2), 481–543.Google Scholar
- Franklyn, D.J. & Hyman, D.A. (2013b). Review of the likely effects of Google’s proposed commitments dated October 21, 2013 (“Second Commitments”). Report. Brussels: Fair Search. http://www.fairsearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/FairSearch-Hyman_Franklyn-Study.pdf
- Henry, P. (2005). Empowering consumers to make better decisions, or strengthening marketers’ potential to persuade. In P. C. Haugtvedt, K. A. Machleit, & R. Yalch (Eds.), Online consumer psychology: Understanding and influencing consumer behavior in the virtual world (pp. 323–336). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Huang, V., Weatherall, K., & Webster, E. (2012). The use of survey evidence in Australian trade mark and passing off cases. In A. T. Kenyon, M. Richardson, & W. L. Ng-Loy (Eds.), The law of reputation and Brands in the Asia Pacific (pp. 181–202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ibanez Colomo, P. (2014). Exclusionary discrimination under article 102 TFEU. Common Market Law Review, 51(1), 141–163.Google Scholar
- Interactive Advertising Bureau. (2016). IAB Internet Advertising Revenue Report. Retrieved from https://www.iab.com/news/q3-2016-internet-ad-revenues-hit-17-6-billion-climbing-20-year-year-according-iab/
- Interflora Inc v Marks and Spencer Plc. (2013). EWHC, 1291.Google Scholar
- Internet World Stats. (2017). Internet Usage Statistics.Google Scholar
- Joined Cases C-236/08 – C-238/08 Google France SARL, Google Inc v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, Google France SARL v Viaticum SA, Luteciel SARL, Google France SARL v Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL, Pierre-Alexis Thonet, Bruno Raboin, Tiger SARL  ECR I-02417.Google Scholar
- Jyrkkiö, L. (2011). But I still haven’t found what I’m looking for’ – The ECJ and the use of competitor’s Trademark in search engine keyword advertising. Helsinki Law Review, 1. Google Scholar
- McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd (1980) 33 ALR 394.Google Scholar
- Momtaz, M. (2011). Google shopping released in Australia. Margin Media. Retrived from http://blog.marginmedia.com.au/Our-Blog/bid/55791/Google-Shopping-released-in-Australia
- Ofcom. (2015). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report. London: Ofcom. Retrieved from http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/other/research-publications/childrens/children-parents-nov-15/.
- Ofcom. (2016). Adults’ media use and attitudes. London: Ofcom. Retrieved from http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/adults-literacy-2016/2016-Adults-media-use-and-attitudes.pdf.
- Pasquale, F. (2006). Rankings, Reductionism, and Responsibility. Seton hall public law research paper no. 888327. South Orange.Google Scholar
- Ranchordas, S. (2015). Does sharing mean caring? Regulating innovation in the sharing economy. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 16(1), 413–475.Google Scholar
- Richardson, M. (2012). Before the high court: Why policy matters: Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Sydney Law Review, 34, 587–598.Google Scholar
- Rosetta Stone Ltd v Google Inc, 676 F 3d 144 (4th Cir, 2012).Google Scholar
- Rothchild, J. (1999). Protecting the digital consumer: The limits of cyberspace utopianism. Indiana Law Journal, 74, 3, 895–998.Google Scholar
- Samat, S. (2013). “Introducing shopping campaigns: A better way to promote your products on Google.” Google Commerce Blog. Retrieved from http://googlecommerce.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/introducing-shopping-campaigns-better.html
- Scardamaglia, A. (2013). Misleading and deceptive conduct and the internet: Lessons and loopholes in Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. European Intellectual Property Review, 35, 707–713.Google Scholar
- Scardamaglia, A. (2014). Keywords, Trademarks and search engine liability. In R. König and M. Rasch (Eds.), Society of the query reader: Reflections on web search. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.Google Scholar
- Solove, D., & Hartzog, W. (2014). The FTC and the new common law of privacy. Columbia Law Review, 114, 583–676.Google Scholar
- Sterling, G. (2016). Search engine ads generated 50 percent of digital revenue in first half of 2016. Search Engine Land. Retrieved from http://searchengineland.com/search-ads-1h-generated-16-3-billion-50-percent-total-digital-revenue-262217
- Swire, P. (2009). No cop on the beat: Underenforcement in E-commerce and cybercrime. Journal on Telecommunications and High-Technology Law, 7, 107–126.Google Scholar
- Van Allen, F. (2014). Google, others ignoring FTC warnings on deceptive search ads. Techlicious. Retrieved from http://www.techlicious.com/blog/ben-edelman-google-deceptive-search-ads/