BenEdelman writes "Today I released WhenU Spams Google, Breaks Google 'No Cloaking' Rules, documenting at least thirteen web sites operated with WhenU's knowledge and approval (if not at WhenU's specific request) that use prohibited methods to attempt to manipulate search engine results as to searches for WhenU and its products.
Google's response was swift: I notified Google of the cloaking infractions
on Sunday, and WhenU's sites were removed from Google by Wednesday. Try a Google
search for "whenu" and see for yourself: You'll get critics' sites
and news coverage, but not www.whenu.com itself.
Some of WhenU's cloaking sites do offer information about WhenU, but their genuine information is interspersed with a mix of gibberish as well as with articles copied, without attribution of any kind, from the New York Times, c|net, and others. Meanwhile, most or all of the sites were registered with invalid whois data -- most registered on the same day through the same registrar, but to five different names with five different gibberish email addresses in four states.
Sound too weird to be true? It turns out these behaviors are part of a practice called "search engine cloaking" -- designed to make search engines think a site is about one subject, when in fact the site redirects most visitors to totally different content. The situation is complicated, and the easiest way to understand it is to read my article, complete with HTTP transmission logs and annotated HTML code.
Is this WhenU's only controversial business practice? No. For one, there's
WhenU's core business -- showing context-triggered pop-up advertisements that
cover other companies' web sites, without those sites authorization, a subject
which has brought on extensive litigation. In
addition, I previously discovered that WhenU violates its own privacy
policy. In its privacy policy, WhenU tells its users that "URLs visited
... are not transmitted to whenu.com or any third party server." But my
research indicates otherwise -- that WhenU transmits to its servers the specific
web pages users visit, and that it makes these transmissions every time users
see WhenU advertisements. Details are in my March 2004 FTC comments, Methods
and Effects of Spyware (PDF)
Ben Edelman
benedelman.org
Note:
JG:
The ironic thing here -- well, okay, one of many ironic things here -- is that Google and WhenU are on the same side in the enormous (and growing) legal battle over Internet intermediaries and trademark infringement. They're both in the business of showing you ads based on what you're looking at, and they've both been sued for it by various trademark holders. WhenU's pop-ups and Google's AdSense may ultimately wind up rising or falling on the same legal standard."