Misleading and deceptive conduct is banned because (apart from the immorality of it when intentional) it makes markets less efficient. Market participants are less able to make rational economic decisions if they are misinformed.

Why should Google be exempted from this? Does anyone really buy the argument that Google should be exempted because its richer than the person who places the ad? ..

..and later..

..To say that Google is being made a victim of regulation unsuited to the internet age is to put up a straw man. ..

Mr Ferret seems to suffer from the illness he seeks to cure. First, he puts up a straw man (Does anyone really buy the argument that Google should be exempted because its richer than the person who places the ad?); then he proceeds to attempt to accuse the author of Mr Mr Ferret’s own conclusions: “That is the logical conclusion of the argument in this article.”

Nick Ferret would make a marvelous Luddhist and lawyer; or even politician.

My conclusion from the article is that the Australian government is going after the deep pockets involved instead of enforcing the concept of responsible business practices by Trading Post – in order to expand its regulatory authority.
(I suppose the Trading Post as part of a major Australian media group isn’t large enough…)
Further, I would say that the ACCC is trying to establish authority beyond its jurisdiction.

And I could be nasty and label these actions as neo-isolationist, plain ignorant, and maybe a reflection of the anti-American sentiment that is seeking a crescendo across the world. But that would be cynical and nasty, wouldn’t it?

The fact is that Google has responded positively to many such complaints in recent months, and done the right thing.
The ACCC is just looking for a cheap win in a colonial court for publicity and political goals. Again protecting the Australian public from a straw man built up to be a monster under the bed…
As kim has said so concisely:

Paternalism run riot, according to the usual Australian approach: ‘if it moves regulate it; if it’s on the internet, then everyone needs protection from it’.

Paul

PS Please watch for typos. My hands are a little large for this verdamter laptop.

“The biggest challenge modern software companies have is developing business models that can actually turn a profit. Reckless regulatory intervention will limit the ability for firms to experiment with ad-based revenue models.

The action against Google is a symptom of a deeper struggle that government and regulators are having with the implications of digital technology and the Internet. Rather than seeing the paradigm shifting opportunities of online services, they are merely being seen as a further opportunity to expand the turf of the regulator.”

There’s also the additional point – what person in the ACCC sat down and thought – yes, the case about the Newcastle Car Dealers, THAT’s the winner case, right?

As for the case of the ads which mislead by using the trade name in a link that actually goes somewhere else – go after the advertisers. Don’t try to turn Google into a surrogate policeman.