Australia: Planes, trains, automobiles and dogs - Google AdWords victory in the High Court of Australia

Last Updated: 17 February 2013
Article by Aemelia Grounds, Christie Green and Michael Grosser

Most Read Contributor in Australia, September 2016

It seems no matter the type of advertising medium used (ie, online, television, radio or newspaper) generally, advertisers remain liable for publication of misleading or deceptive advertisements. Google Inc (Google) has won its six year legal battle with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) after the High Court unanimously held that it had not engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by publishing sponsored links which included the name of an advertiser's competitor or a competitor's product on search results.


Throughout the period 2005 to 2008, the Google search engine would provide users with two types of results in response to their keyword searches. The first was 'organic search results' (i.e. links to web pages) and secondly, and relevantly, 'sponsored links'. A sponsored link is a form of advertisement created by, or at the direction of advertisers, willing to pay Google for advertising text which directs users to a website of the advertiser's choosing. The sponsored link is triggered in response to a user's keyword search in the Google search engine.

The key issue in the High Court Special Leave appeal was whether Google had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct1 by publishing or displaying eleven Google AdWord Ads, or sponsored links, that falsely represented an affiliation between customers of Google's AdWords program and competing businesses. Importantly, the appeal did not concern whether the advertisers to whom the sponsored links belonged, had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.

A brief chronology of this matter is set out below.

The Federal Court Decision

In July 2007 the ACCC commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Google under Part VI of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA) (now the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA)) seeking declarations and injunctive relief against Google and another party2. The ACCC claimed that:

  1. Google had engaged in conduct contrary to section 52 of the TPA (now section 18 of Schedule 2 of the CCA) by "failing to sufficiently distinguish between organic search results and sponsored links"; and
  2. Google had engaged in conduct contrary to section 52 of the TPA by publishing or displaying particular sponsored links.

The case concerned sponsored links for STA travel,, Ausdog training and the Trading Post (the Advertisements) which had been produced by the advertisers. An example of a sponsored link in issue in the Federal Court proceeding was that which appeared in response to searches for 'Harvey World Travel'. The sponsored link displayed the banner Harvey World Travel with a link to the website of its competitor 'STA Travel' appearing in smaller font below. Instead of taking users to the 'Harvey World Travel' website, the link took users to the website of 'STA Travel', who had paid Google to use the AdWords program.

In the decision of His Honour Mr Justice Nicholas the Federal Court agreed that the Advertisements amounted to misleading or deceptive representations, however it held that the representations had been made by the advertisers, not by Google. The Federal Court considered that Google had acted merely as a 'conduit', communicating the Advertisements without endorsing or approving them.

Nicholas J held that:

  • the Advertisements contained representations that were likely to mislead or deceive;
  • Google did not 'make' the representations conveyed by the Advertisements, rather Google acted merely as a conduit, passing on the Advertisements of others without endorsing or approving them; and
  • ordinary and reasonable people (who have access to a computer connected to the internet but would not necessarily have a detailed familiarity with the search engine) would have understood that sponsored links were advertisements and were different from organic search results.

The Trading Post Pty Ltd matter settled, but the Google proceeding continued.

The Full Federal Court Decision

The ACCC appealed to the Full Federal Court, which found that Google had misleadingly represented that there was a connection between the competitor business and the business for which the user of the search engine was searching for. Allowing the appeal, the Full Federal Court unanimously held that Google had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by publishing the sponsored links. The Full Federal Court considered the sponsored links as being Google's response to users submitting a search term to the search engine, and that Google's technology was responsible for the search results and that Google had an active role in the misleading and deceptive conduct3.

Accordingly, their Honours found that:

  • Google's conduct was that of a principal and not merely as a conduit; and
  • the reaction of the ordinary and reasonable member of the relevant class is not solely determinative of the issue, because the circumstances show that Google was more than a mere conduit.

Further, the Full Federal Court also observed that Google had:

  • designed the 'keywords' facility as part of the AdWords program which allowed advertisers to nominate search terms which would produce the search results, and
  • reviewed the keywords chosen by advertisers and had ultimately determined whether the advertisements would be published.

As such, ordinary users would not see Google as merely 'passing on' the advertisers information.

In the High Court

Google successfully sought leave to appeal the decision of the Full Federal Court to the High Court. The issue before the High Court was whether, in all the circumstances, Google (as distinct from the advertisers to whom the sponsored links belonged) had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by publishing or displaying the sponsored links. The ACCC argued that Google was the maker/creator of the sponsored links and relied on the fact that Google used its technology to display the sponsored links to search requests made by Google's users. It argued that Google had done more than merely pass on the sponsored links to users, and that Google had inserted search terms chosen by users of the Google search function as headlines in the sponsored links, and was responsible for the clickable headline containing the name of the competitor and URL of another trader and the advertiser's URL.

Google argued that the fact that it displayed the sponsored links in response to users' search requests was not enough to conclude that Google had itself made the misleading representations conveyed.

In reaching its decision, the High Court highlighted the fact that:

  • the AdWords program allowed advertisers, and not Google, to:
    • create the sponsored links and the content contained therein; and
    • specify the keywords which would trigger the sponsored links;
  • Google has no control over search terms entered by users;
  • it would be difficult, in practice, for Google to identify different keywords and sponsored links as being misleading or deceptive; and
  • Google's display of sponsored links in response to users' search terms was dictated solely by the AdWords program and the keywords nominated by advertisers.

The High Court considered that the display of sponsored links (together with the organic search results) did not mean that Google was the maker, author, creator or originator of the information in a sponsored link. The High Court considered that the technology that causes the sponsored links to be displayed simply assembles information provided by Google users for the purpose of displaying advertisements. The High Court also considered that the ordinary reasonable user of the search engine would understand that the representations made by the sponsored links were those of the advertisers, and were not adopted or endorsed by Google. Accordingly, it held that Google had not engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.

By way of analogy, Google was said to be no different to any other publishing intermediary such as newspaper publishers or radio or television broadcasters when advertising.


For Online Advertisers

The decision is an important reminder for businesses who use online advertising, and/or who display third party material on their websites.

There is nothing wrong with adopting a competitor's name or trade mark as a search engine key-term. However businesses should:

  • ensure that, if they use an online advertising program and create a search-term link to a competitor's name, the advertisement should not suggest an affiliation between a competitor's and the advertiser's businesses;
  • the advertisement should not display the competitor's name or trade marks (e.g. STA Travel advertisement displaying the name 'Harvey World Travel');
  • the advertiser's website should not use a competitor's business name or trade marks (unless used for 'comparative advertising' and only with proper signage removing any suggesting of affiliation); and
  • if your business website allows third party postings (e.g. reviews or blogs), ensure that the website contains an appropriate disclaimer (i.e. that the posts are not made on behalf of the business) . However you should also monitor third party postings to ensure that any misleading or deceptive content is removed promptly.

For Online Publishers

This decision is authority for the view that advertisers will be liable for misleading or deceptive online advertisements rather than publishers. However, this position is not absolute. Where an online publisher exercises a high level of involvement or discretion in relation to the creation, or endorsement, of the content of an advertisement, then that publisher may not be considered to be a 'mere conduit' for the advertiser.

Accordingly, online publishers such as website operators, social media administrators and search engine providers should be conscious of their level of involvement and interaction with the content and display of advertisements. If an online publisher is considered to have adopted or endorsed a misleading or deceptive advertisement, they too can find themselves in hot water.

Other cases concerning the liability of Google

This case has been closely watched in Australia and around the world, as it has implications for the responsibility and liability of online search engines and hosts of third party content. Interestingly, the liability for search engines in other areas of the law, such as defamation, is not as clear. Google's liability as a publisher of defamatory content and misleading and deceptive conduct has been the subject of a number of other cases in Australia and world wide.

In Australia, Google has been found liable as a publisher for defamatory content.4 In November 2012 the Victorian Supreme Court found Google liable for publishing defamatory material concerning Milorad Trkulja, a music promoter, which linked him with criminal figures in Melbourne.5

The issue was that a Google search of 'Michael Trkulja' presented users with images and articles which suggested that Mr Trkulja was a prominent figure in the Melbourne criminal underworld and was involved with crime in Melbourne. The Court found that Mr Trkulja had established an entitlement to damages against Google in respect of the Google 'image' search results. It was held that these images implied that Mr Trkulja was so involved with crime in Melbourne that his rivals had hired a hit man to murder him.

Google has also faced a number of defamation claims around the world as a result of its 'auto-complete' function, a number of which have been upheld. Most recently, an Australian surgeon, Dr Guy Hingston, filed a defamation suit against Google in the US District Court in California claiming that Google's 'auto complete' search function displayed defamatory search suggestions, implying that he was bankrupt. In Switzerland, Google was found not liable for defamation for the auto complete function, as the Court considered that these were not statements made by Google.6 Google's liability for its auto-complete function may soon be tested in Australia.

How we can help you?

This decision highlights that there is a very fine line for publishers between 'adopting or endorsing' an advertisement and being a 'mere conduit' for the advertiser. It is unclear as to exactly what activities will constitute either conduct. To this end, if you operate in the online community you will need to carefully consider the extent of your involvement across all forms of mediums used to advertise products and services.


1 At the commencement of the proceedings, section 52 of the Trade Practices Act (Cth) was the relevant provision. From 1 January 2011, the relevant provision is section 18 of Schedule 2 – The Australian Consumer Law to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
2 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Trading Post (2011) 197 FCR 554.
3 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Google Inc (2012) 201 FCR 503.
4 Trkulja v Google (No 5) [2012] VSC 533.
5 Trkulja v Google (No 5) [2012] VSC 533.
6 Jura Cantonal Court, decision of February 12 2011, CC 117/2010 (confirming the Civil Court of First Instance, decision of August 5 2010), available at

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Michael Grosser
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.