- A federal judge reaffirmed his earlier ruling in favor of Google in a
lawsuit brought by search marketers attempting to bring a class-action lawsuit against Google, stemming from its "parked domains" and "errors" programs.
- In a decision issued earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila declined to reconsider an earlier pro-Google decision denying the marketers
- In that earlier ruling, issued in January, Davila said a class-action lawsuit was inappropriate in
this case because "individualized issues of restitution permeate the class claims."
- Shortly after that ruling came
out, the marketers suing Google asked Davila to reconsider. They argued that restitution awards could be calculated without individualized inquiries. Alternatively, they asked
Davila to certify a class simply for purposes of figuring out whether Google was liable.
Davila rejected both of those arguments, noting that the
class-certification question has "already been thoughtfully decided."
The marketers that sued can still proceed individually, but it's unlikely that individual marketers' monetary damages would approach the cost of
litigation. By contrast, in class-action lawsuits, attorneys often are awarded fees as part of the final judgment.
The long-running litigation began in
2008, when several marketers filed lawsuits complaining about
Google's AdSense for Domains and AdSense for Errors programs. Those programs often serve ads on typo sites that people land on accidentally.
The marketers argued that ads on those types of
sites result in fewer purchases than ads on Google's search results pages. The marketers also claimed that ads on parked domains "could damage their brands."
Google asserted that marketers
often benefited from ads on parked domains or error pages. The company also said it told marketers about the programs and allowed them to opt out.
While Google wasn't able to get the lawsuit entirely dismissed, the company prevailed
on its argument that the lawsuit shouldn't proceed as a class-action. Google contended that marketers' damages, if any, must be calculated on an individual basis, making the case unsuitable for