Microsoft Sues Three in Click-Fraud Scheme

[HardOCP News]

Microsoft has filed its very first click-fraud lawsuit seeking $750k in damages against a group of people in Vancouver, BC. Now there's a milestone you wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of.

Microsoft filed the civil complaint on Monday in United States District Court in Seattle against Eric Lam, Gordon Lam and Melanie Suen, of Vancouver, British Columbia, along with several corporation names they were believed to have used, and several unnamed parties.

 

[TechieSooner]

Actually sounds like they have a good case, too...

I personally wouldn't want to be getting sued by Microsoft's team of lawyers... I wonder what their settlement offer is. There's no way these three guys could win.

 

[Kristofff]

What, exactly, is illegal about clicking links? It may be distasteful and rude, but abusing a search engine isn't anything like mail fraud. The only precedent i see here is being able to sue people and companies who don't accept it when they've been banned from a search engine and cost the search engine owners money. This isn't about fraud from what I see, unless you twist words to try and make then ends (law molestation) justify the means.

 

[Kristofff]

(I am not a lawyer and the courts probably don't care about the actual law anyways)

 

[TechieSooner]

You're getting paid by your customers to host these ads on your servers.
Costs? Depends on the ad, but someone's got to stick them in. They've all got to run on servers which all cost $$$$$$

Then when your customer gets bogus hits, either they'll expect a refund that month or just outright cancel.

Think outside that small little box of "Evil Microsoft" and you'll see it really does cost dollars.

 

[ZDPhoenix]

That's a potential for costs up the wahzoo. M$ is gonna be in the right here.

(I am not a lawyer)

Then why assume anything?

 

[Exavior]

What, exactly, is illegal about clicking links? It may be distasteful and rude, but abusing a search engine isn't anything like mail fraud. The only precedent i see here is being able to sue people and companies who don't accept it when they've been banned from a search engine and cost the search engine owners money. This isn't about fraud from what I see, unless you twist words to try and make then ends (law molestation) justify the means.

They aren't abusing the search engine, they are clicking on ads thousand upon thousands of times to cost the over of the ads millions of dollars in clicks.

All to make them run out of money and have to stop paying for advertising so that the smaller companies can keep paying their small amount and yet get past them in the listings as they would be paying more than the others.

This would be like constanty stealing "free" flyers from a competitor at a store so that they have to keep paying for printing of new ones to put out until they run out of money and can not print anymore. Leaving you being the only one with flyers at that location.

 

[ianken]

What, exactly, is illegal about clicking links? It may be distasteful and rude, but abusing a search engine isn't anything like mail fraud. The only precedent i see here is being able to sue people and companies who don't accept it when they've been banned from a search engine and cost the search engine owners money. This isn't about fraud from what I see, unless you twist words to try and make then ends (law molestation) justify the means.

RTFA dude. The defendants in this case used automated systems to click the ads of their competitors, exhausting their competitors ad budgets thereby allowing their own ads to bubble to the top.

This is why it is called click FRAUD. The clicks were FRAUDULENT.

 

[Kristofff]

They aren't abusing the search engine, they are clicking on ads thousand upon thousands of times to cost the over of the ads millions of dollars in clicks.

All to make them run out of money and have to stop paying for advertising so that the smaller companies can keep paying their small amount and yet get past them in the listings as they would be paying more than the others.

This would be like constanty stealing "free" flyers from a competitor at a store so that they have to keep paying for printing of new ones to put out until they run out of money and can not print anymore. Leaving you being the only one with flyers at that location.

It would not be like stealing flyers at all... It would be like setting up a robot to look at the flyers all day, and every time the robot looks at the flyer, the company on the flyer has to pay up. Its a problem with the advertisement model, not a problem with fraud. You can't fraudulently click a link and break a law. The only thing you could break is some hidden Terms Of Service agreement that no one actually reads.

Like I said, if the courts punish this based on fraud, its simply further perversion of the law (in this case to support corporate needs rather than to support racism, discrimination, or to collect revenue)

RTFA dude. The defendants in this case used automated systems to click the ads of their competitors, exhausting their competitors ad budgets thereby allowing their own ads to bubble to the top.

This is why it is called click FRAUD. The clicks were FRAUDULENT.

That is a problem with the advertisement system. There is no fraud committed when a computer clicks a link because there is no law saying only a person can click a link.

The only illegal thing that could have happened was a breach of agreement between the two parties, in which case this whole thing should be labeled, "Microsoft Sues Three in Breach of Agreement Scheme."

All that being said, I don't doubt that Microsoft can make a judge rule against reality, like is done all the time in the courts.

 

[MavericK]

It would not be like stealing flyers at all... It would be like setting up a robot to look at the flyers all day, and every time the robot looks at the flyer, the company on the flyer has to pay up.

That analogy really makes no sense, and doesn't prove your point at all. If the company has to pay every time a flyer is viewed/taken/whatever, it doesn't matter what happens to the flyer. All that matters is that the company has to pay per instance. It doesn't matter if the physical object is taken or not.

 

[MavericK]

EDIT:

And really, arguably it's even worse, since you can only take a certain number of flyers until there are no more, and the company can stop putting more out. With a click ad it can be done an infinite number of times until there is no more money left.

 

[TechieSooner]

ItYou can't fraudulently click a link and break a law.

Holy hell you're ignorant:

Definition for fraud
- crime of cheating somebody: the crime of obtaining money or some other benefit by deliberate deception
- somebody who deceives: somebody who deliberately deceives somebody else, usually for financial gain
- something intended to deceive: something that is intended to deceive people

That is a problem with the advertisement system. There is no fraud committed when a computer clicks a link because there is no law saying only a person can click a link.

It's theft, is what it is... And theft, is illegal.
These people are basically taking revenue via another source (Microsoft) so that their own revenue can go up.

 

[TechieSooner]

I'm also willing to bet, if this were Google, you'd be cheering them on.

Oh wait, Google has done this same exact thing before. And won.
http://www.clickz.com/clickz_print&id=3440341

And further defined it as "invalid clicks, as any method used to artificially and/or maliciously generate clicks or page impressions"
http://www.clickz.com/3453201

 

[Kristofff]

That analogy really makes no sense, and doesn't prove your point at all. If the company has to pay every time a flyer is viewed/taken/whatever, it doesn't matter what happens to the flyer. All that matters is that the company has to pay per instance. It doesn't matter if the physical object is taken or not.

Microsoft is the one who took money from them everytime they got clicked. The clickers didn't take anything.

Holy hell you're ignorant:



It's theft, is what it is... And theft, is illegal.
These people are basically taking revenue via another source (Microsoft) so that their own revenue can go up.

If I send myself a valentines day and pretend it is from someone else that doesn't make it criminally fraudulent. Fraud has specific implications and a computer clicking a link is not fraud just because Microsoft's advertisement system is flawed. The only people who directly gained monetarily from this is Microsoft through the clicks. The people being sued merely benefitted from an ingenious side effect. Yes, they should be banned from the site and sued for continued antics adn disruption if they continue, but they didn't commit fraud in an practical sense of the word.

I'm also willing to bet, if this were Google, you'd be cheering them on.

Oh wait, Google has done this same exact thing before. And won.
http://www.clickz.com/clickz_print&id=3440341

And further defined it as "invalid clicks, as any method used to artificially and/or maliciously generate clicks or page impressions"
http://www.clickz.com/3453201

I never said the courts wouldn't side with the corporation by way a law perversion. Just because you make a flawed ad system that is easily trickable, it doesn't mean you should get to bend laws to suit your own screw ups.

 

[Kristofff]

EDIT:

And really, arguably it's even worse, since you can only take a certain number of flyers until there are no more, and the company can stop putting more out. With a click ad it can be done an infinite number of times until there is no more money left.

And, just because you missed the obvious, the links go down when the budgets run out. Hence, your analogous flyers running out; the parallel you somehow missed.

 

[Crosshairs]

Microsoft is the one who took money from them everytime they got clicked. The clickers didn't take anything.

wrong

If I send myself a valentines day and pretend it is from someone else that doesn't make it criminally fraudulent. Fraud has specific implications and a computer clicking a link is not fraud just because Microsoft's advertisement system is flawed. The only people who directly gained monetarily from this is Microsoft through the clicks. The people being sued merely benefitted from an ingenious side effect. Yes, they should be banned from the site and sued for continued antics adn disruption if they continue, but they didn't commit fraud in an practical sense of the word..

wrong again..MS had to refund 1.5 million dollars

I never said the courts wouldn't side with the corporation by way a law perversion. Just because you make a flawed ad system that is easily trickable, it doesn't mean you should get to bend laws to suit your own screw ups.

you really should read the article....your looking pretty silly here

 

[operaman]

And, just because you missed the obvious, the links go down when the budgets run out. Hence, your analogous flyers running out; the parallel you somehow missed.

The point is if you do not see the fraud and crime committed here, than you are in need of serious help. People should respect laws. And while you can argue semantics, the facts are these people used click fraud to generate profit. Since things do not occur in a vacuum someone somewhere lost money to this illegal profiteering.

Oh, and your robot analogy. So, someone set up the robot to click a million times. IT is not as if a robot or bot in general is a sentient being. The person setting it up is, and therefore subject to the law. So your own argument lacks all merit. This is B.S. You know it, I know it, hell the large elephant in the room knows it.

Microsoft is not the issue here.

 

[TechieSooner]

Microsoft is the one who took money from them everytime they got clicked. The clickers didn't take anything.

That's like saying if I sell someone's identity to another and they exploit it.
I didn't take anything, either.

 

[Usquabach]

reports say he was advertising against auto insurance and WoW ads.

therefore by clicking other people's ads thousands of times and making them reach their daily budgets, the ads disappear and are replaced with his own ads. therefore he makes money while others loose it. to me that sounds pretty much like fraud.

 

[RiZnO]

Either way... You don't have to actually break any laws to get sued... Thats why they are going to court... No one is saying they broke a law, they are essentially saying they rightfully owe MS a sum of money for their actions.. am i wrong?

 

[TechieSooner]

Either way... You don't have to actually break any laws to get sued... Thats why they are going to court... No one is saying they broke a law, they are essentially saying they rightfully owe MS a sum of money for their actions.. am i wrong?

That's exactly right.

Just like a common court thing in the US... Divorce.

Neither one broke a law, they just want to squabble over money

 

[Kristofff]

wrong

The "clickers" took no money from either party.

wrong again..MS had to refund 1.5 million dollars

Refunding isn't losing money. That is why it is called "refunding". And, I never said they kept it forever, only that Microsoft received money, and not the "clickers"

you really should read the article....your looking pretty silly here

Tricking someone doesn't make it criminally fraudulent when you don't take money from someone. No one lost money here, all sides received their money back. The best you could argue is that Microsoft's has been delayed their money because of their flawed and easily trickable system. If they lose money because people don't want to advertise on such an easily manipulated system, who's fault is that? Its Microsoft's.

Microsoft should be suing for breach of agreement, not fraud.

The point is if you do not see the fraud and crime committed here, than you are in need of serious help. People should respect laws. And while you can argue semantics, the facts are these people used click fraud to generate profit. Since things do not occur in a vacuum someone somewhere lost money to this illegal profiteering.

Oh, and your robot analogy. So, someone set up the robot to click a million times. IT is not as if a robot or bot in general is a sentient being. The person setting it up is, and therefore subject to the law. So your own argument lacks all merit. This is B.S. You know it, I know it, hell the large elephant in the room knows it.

Microsoft is not the issue here.

Who lost money?

That's like saying if I sell someone's identity to another and they exploit it.
I didn't take anything, either.

No, its not anything like that because Microsoft refunded the money and it wasn't identity theft. Thanks for playing, though.

reports say he was advertising against auto insurance and WoW ads.

therefore by clicking other people's ads thousands of times and making them reach their daily budgets, the ads disappear and are replaced with his own ads. therefore he makes money while others loose it. to me that sounds pretty much like fraud.

How is that fraud? That is manipulation. It can't be fraud if the only thing "fraudulent" is that everyone though it was a vague idea of "customers" clicking the links. Don't make a system dependent on bad design and assumptions if you don't want things to go unexpectedly.

Either way... You don't have to actually break any laws to get sued... Thats why they are going to court... No one is saying they broke a law, they are essentially saying they rightfully owe MS a sum of money for their actions.. am i wrong?

You are exactly right. Sue them for trespassing on the servers after breaking the TOS, breach of contract, or whatever they actually did wrong. Might as well call them terrorists if you are going to use blanket terms out of context. I mean, look at all this panic they caused!

If anybody should be sued, it should be Microsoft for selling a service based on such a faulty design that failed in the exact way that was to be expected.

Here's another analogy for you guys:

I send love notes through social networks to the boyfriend of a girl I want to date. She finds out and leaves him for because of the conversations they were having and I start dating her. If I were to be exposed, I'm not suddenly open to be sued for "fraud" because I gained from a side effect of what happened. Yes he lost something. Yes I gained something. But using those vague ideas are the closest to actual "fraud" definition that you will get. Just because you can ethereally relate a tangent to something doesn't mean that its the same as the actual thing.

 

[TechieSooner]

Refunding isn't losing money. That is why it is called "refunding". And, I never said they kept it forever, only that Microsoft received money, and not the "clickers"

***NEWS FLASH***
Servers cost money to run, marketing people cost money to employ, and inconvenience to customers can cost more than the dollar amount of the refund.

Thanks for playing, though.

 

[Kristofff]

***NEWS FLASH***
Servers cost money to run, marketing people cost money to employ, and inconvenience to customers can cost more than the dollar amount of the refund.

Thanks for playing, though.

Servers are a fixed cost. Staff is a fixed cost. People come to Microsoft to buy advertisements so "marketers" have nothing to do with this. Microsoft is selling a broken system that cost the customers money. The original ads will go right back to the top of the list where they came were before.

Again, the "fraudsters" didn't gain money by taking it from someone else. They merely benefited from the side effect of a flawed system. They didn't defraud anyone of money. Next you'll be telling me pirates are stealing money from the RIAA.

 

[TechieSooner]

Servers are a fixed cost. Staff is a fixed cost.

So, if I follow your reasoning, since costs are fixed you don't have to cover them?

People come to Microsoft to buy advertisements so "marketers" have nothing to do with this.

First, I used "employees"... Someone has to pop the ads in.

Microsoft is selling a broken system that cost the customers money.

How do you fix it then? Because guess what? Google uses the same damned thing, I'd I'd guess since 90% of their revenue comes from Ads, that they have a pretty good fucking idea of what they're doing. And guess what? Google has sued for this same thing, too.



Your argument fails hard.

 

[TechieSooner]

First, I should've used "employees"... Someone has to pop the ads in.

Fixed... no edit button.

 

[SirKronan]

Either way... You don't have to actually break any laws to get sued... Thats why they are going to court... No one is saying they broke a law, they are essentially saying they rightfully owe MS a sum of money for their actions.. am i wrong?

You are right, and in this case MS is also right. Kristoff would be doing the same thing if it were his business, or he's an absolute idiot.

 

[Kristofff]

You are right, and in this case MS is also right. Kristoff would be doing the same thing if it were his business, or he's an absolute idiot.

Good thing I did say they should sue