• by Wendy Davis , over 1 hour ago

Major ad industry groups are backing Google in a battle with two web users over 60 who contend the company violates a California anti-discrimination law by enabling businesses to target ads based on age.

The industry organizations argue in court papers filed Monday that California's Unruh Act only prohibits "arbitrary, invidious or unreasonable" discrimination.

Age-based ad targeting in itself isn't arbitrary, invidious or unreasonable the industry groups say.

"Whether it is the tailored advertising of the modern internet, or traditional advertising in print or radio that long pre-date the Unruh Act, the mere use of age information to identify a receptive audience is not unreasonable or invidious discrimination," the Association of National Advertisers, American Advertising Federation, American Association of Advertising Agencies and Digital Advertising Alliance say in a proposed friend-of-the-court letter sent to the 6th District Court of Appeal in California.

"A company selling spring break vacations may reasonably wish to advertise a future trip to college-aged students, for example, rather than retirees," the groups write.

Their letter comes in a dispute dating to 2024, when then 66-year-old Richard Haynie and 63-year-old Constance Galloway alleged in a class-action complaint that Google's ad platform allowed advertisers of insurance, banking and other financial services to prevent their ads from being shown to older consumers.

Google urged Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Beth McGowen to throw out the case at an early stage, arguing that age-based ad targeting doesn't violate California's civil rights law.

Google also said it was protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields companies from liability for activity by third parties -- in this case, advertisers who allegedly used Google's ad-targeting tools.

Beth McGowen rejected Google's arguments in June, and allowed Haynie and Galloway to proceed with their suit.

Last week, Google petitioned the 6th District Appellate Court to vacate that ruling and order McGowen to dismiss the complaint, arguing that McGowen's ruling "defies California law and common sense."

"The court below never even asked whether age-targeted advertising, long a staple of marketing, is a rational practice," Google wrote. "The answer is yes: Businesses and organizations have limited advertising budgets, and it is entirely rational for them to focus their efforts on consumers who they believe will be most likely to purchase their products or services."

The ad industry says in its friend-of-the-court letter that McGowen's ruling, if "taken to its logical conclusion," could expose companies "to significant liability for long-standing and commonplace advertising practices."

The ruling "could call into question efforts to direct retirement-planning information to consumers approaching retirement, student-banking information to college-age adults, or notices of age-eligible discounts to consumers who qualify for them," the ad groups write.

Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman, UC Berkeley law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky and University of Akron law professor Jess Miers also sided with Google in a separate friend-of-the-court letter.

"All ads are targeted at some level," the law professors write. "No advertiser can afford to reach every potential consumer, and it would be financially irrational to spend money on advertising that reaches too many consumers who are unlikely to transact with the advertiser."

They add that it may be "irrational and economically inefficient to force businesses to advertise products like mobility scooters and retirement homes to college-aged consumers, or to market baby food to teenagers and student discounts to senior citizens."