Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 299–320 | Cite as

Profiling the Australian Google Consumer: Implications of Search Engine Practices for Consumer Law and Policy

Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Google Consumer law Consumer policy Trade marks Intermediary liability AdWords Internet advertising 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Bechtold, S., & Tucker, C. (2014). Trademarks, triggers, and online search. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11, 718–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coorey, A. (2016). The ACCC, the internet and extraterritorial injunctions. Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law, 24, 214–221.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Daly, A. (2016). Private power, online information flows and EU law: Mind the gap. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  7. 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/.
  8. Dinner, I. M., Van Heerde, H. J., & Neslin, S. A. (2014). Driving online and offline sales: The Cross-Channel effects of traditional, online display, and paid search advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(5), 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. eMarketer. (2016). Digital ad spending to surpass TV next year.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Evans, D. (2009). The online advertising Industry: Economics, evolution, and privacy. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3), 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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/
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Helberger, N., Loos, M. B. M., Mak, C., & Pressers, L. (2013). Digital content contracts for consumers. Journal of Consumer Policy, 36(1), 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Ibanez Colomo, P. (2014). Exclusionary discrimination under article 102 TFEU. Common Market Law Review, 51(1), 141–163.Google Scholar
  27. Incardona, R., & Poncibo, C. (2007). The average consumer, the unfair commercial practices directive and the cognitive revolution. Journal of Consumer Policy, 30, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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/
  29. Interflora Inc v Marks and Spencer Plc. (2013). EWHC, 1291.Google Scholar
  30. Internet World Stats. (2017). Internet Usage Statistics.Google Scholar
  31. Introna, L. D., & Nissenbaum, H. (2000). Shaping the web: Why the politics of search engines matter. Information Society, 16(3), 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 [2010] ECR I-02417.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Lindsay, D. (2014). The ‘right to be forgotten’ by search engines under data privacy law: A legal analysis of the Costeja ruling. Journal of Media Law, 6, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Loos, M., & Luzak, J. (2016). Wanted, a bigger stick: On unfair terms in consumer contracts with online service providers. Journal of Consumer Policy, 39(1), 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lynskey, O. (2015). Control over personal data in a digital age: Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzalez. Modern Law Review, 78(3), 522–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marsden, C. (2013). Network neutrality: A research guide. In I. Brown (Ed.), Research handbook on governance of the internet (pp. 419–444). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd (1980) 33 ALR 394.Google Scholar
  39. Mik, E. (2016). The erosion of autonomy in online consumer transactions. Law. Innovation and Technology, 8(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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/.
  42. Pasquale, F. (2006). Rankings, Reductionism, and Responsibility. Seton hall public law research paper no. 888327. South Orange.Google Scholar
  43. Ramcharran, H. (2013). E-commerce growth and the changing structure of the retail sales Industry. International Journal of E-Business Research, 9(2), 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Rosetta Stone Ltd v Google Inc, 676 F 3d 144 (4th Cir, 2012).Google Scholar
  47. Rothchild, J. (1999). Protecting the digital consumer: The limits of cyberspace utopianism. Indiana Law Journal, 74, 3, 895–998.Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. Solove, D., & Hartzog, W. (2014). The FTC and the new common law of privacy. Columbia Law Review, 114, 583–676.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. 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/
  55. Vaughan, L., & Thelwall, M. (2004). Search engine coverage bias: Evidence and possible causes. Information Processing and Management, 40(4), 693–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30, 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queensland University of Technology Faculty of LawBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Swinburne University of Technology Law SchoolHawthornAustralia

Personalised recommendations