Google Adwords - discrimination against legal activity?

[jtaylor]

I have recently tried to setup Google Adwords to help advertise the website of The Oxford Gun Company.

Having setup my Adwords account, and paid the £5 activation fee, I was informed that my advert had been rejected, as "At this time we do not allow ads for websites that sell guns or related products"

Given the entirely legal activities of the Oxford Gun Company, does this class as discimination, and in this case, any suggestions of how to progress this?

As a keen clay-shooter, I am somewhat offended that Google have arbitrarily decided what can and can't be advertised...
A local radio station (FOX FM) has a similar policy, where you can advertise a charity shoot or free lesson, but not advertise that you're a gun shop!

Search for "Clay Shooting Oxford" however and they have plenty of shooting-related Sponsored Links on the right....They say that this is because they're not selling guns or ammunition! Where do they think the guns and cartridges come from!

Incidentaly they are also refusing to refund the activation fee, if I choose to cancel the account (not much else I can do really, as the OGC aren't simply going to stop selling guns and ammunition!)

Thoughts?

Full quote from Google:

3.Product Policy
As noted in our advertising terms and conditions, Google reserves the right to exercise editorial discretion when it comes to the advertising we accept on our site. At this time we do not allow ads for websites that sell guns or related products.

Google believes strongly in freedom of expression and therefore offers broad access to content across the web without censoring results. Please note that the decisions we make concerning advertising in no way affect the search results we deliver. We will continue to show search results for guns and related products.

and re. the refund:-

2.Refund

Google charges an activation fee to ensure our advertisers are committed to the goal of creating well targeted advertisements. Therefore, we are unable to refund your activation fee. We apologise for any inconvenience and welcome you to use the same AdWords account in the future when the programme better suits your needs.

Per the Google AdWords programme Terms and Conditions, you are responsible for paying the charges accrued to your account. You can view the Terms and Conditions at https://adwords.google.co.uk/select/tsandcsfinder.

[graham]

their policy states that they can, at their discretion, offer you a refund in the form of credit. If the fee was for a specific ad, then surely as it wasn't activated you should be entitled to a refund. A strongly worded letter should do the trick. Or there's always watchdog (is it still running?)

[englishangel]

I thought Google was independent not run by our kneejerk Government.

Anyone who wants a gun for illegal activities does not buy it from a Google Ad.

ebay in the UK don't sell guns but they do sell accessories, but ebay.com does sell guns.

[gnuvag]

Use your Adwords subscription to subvert their rules, e.g. link to a website (that you set up) that is a spoof of the Oxford Gun Company, called Not The Oxford Gun Company that absolutely doesn't sell guns. No sir. No guns here. But that website conveniently recommends where you might go to find some guns.
Or something like that.

[matthew]

I have recently tried to setup Google Adwords to help advertise the website of The Oxford Gun Company.

Having setup my Adwords account, and paid the £5 activation fee, I was informed that my advert had been rejected, as "At this time we do not allow ads for websites that sell guns or related products"

Given the entirely legal activities of the Oxford Gun Company, does this class as discimination, and in this case, any suggestions of how to progress this?

It's discrimination, but almost certainly not illegal. AIUI, there are laws against specific kinds of discrimination, but anything else is fair game.

It's *probably* unfair of them not to refund your activation fee, though legally they may be able to keep it. I expect you checked a box saying you agree to their terms, and their terms probably say 'no guns'.

It's worth asking for your money back; perhaps the content policy wasn't displayed clearly enough before you parted with your money. Beyond that, there's little you can do. At least, not for a fiver. You could set up a protest site if it helps you feel better, or try to orchestrate an email exchange that makes them seem silly and post it here.

[sejintenej]

It's discrimination, but almost certainly not illegal. AIUI, there are laws against specific kinds of discrimination, but anything else is fair game.

It's *probably* unfair of them not to refund your activation fee, though legally they may be able to keep it. I expect you checked a box saying you agree to their terms, and their terms probably say 'no guns'.

It's worth asking for your money back; perhaps the content policy wasn't displayed clearly enough before you parted with your money. Beyond that, there's little you can do. At least, not for a fiver. You could set up a protest site if it helps you feel better, or try to orchestrate an email exchange that makes them seem silly and post it here.

One basic question - is the company you are dealing with Google Inc or is it Google Co. Ltd incorporated in the UK. Any action against the former would have to take place in the UIDSA and I doubt if they have any form of customer protection. If you are paying a UK incorporated company then they are subject to UK law and customer protection rules. However, you are acting on behalf of a busines so the normal protections don't apply.

Google is very likely to have used good lawyers who, as Matthew suggests, would have included all sorts of clauses in their terms and conditions allowing them to do whatever they like including refusing ads and then refusing to refund the fee.

You can look at the list of Ebay prohibitions - phew!!!!

Sorry, but I think you are on a hiding to nothing.

David

[jtaylor]

Thanks for all the advice/info.

I guess I'm mostly just angry that they are able to be disciminatory in this way, against something completely legal.

I won't bother pursuing them for £5 - but I will be trying to BASConto the case, as I've been a member for many years and The Oxford Gun Company are corporate members too.

I just hate this sort of thing.............makes me wanna get hold of someone!

J

[sejintenej]

Thanks for all the advice/info.

I guess I'm mostly just angry that they are able to be disciminatory in this way, against something completely legal.

I won't bother pursuing them for £5 - but I will be trying to BASConto the case, as I've been a member for many years and The Oxford Gun Company are corporate members too.

I just hate this sort of thing.............makes me wanna get hold of someone!

J

Been there, done that, got the tee shirt (or rather the whole board of an NHS Trust we got replaced after a 4 years battle).

Currently chasing after a major assurance group who seem to be in serious breach of their operating licence. After 2 1/2 years it's got beyond hate - it is fun.

I agree that trying to get £5 back isn't worth the effort even if the law were on your side. People have done it and succeeded but the last time I remember the judge (who must have been exasperated) gave and award and damages of one penny and awarded thousands of pounds of costs against the plaintiff (who won). A phyrric victory.

You have to be careful where the law is concerned. Many of the quickly explained ones cannot be posted here but here is a laugh:

Elizabeth I passed a law intended to stop women leading men into marriage through the use of false hair, make-up, false hips, high-heeled shoes or other such devices. The penalties were as for witchcraft.

Don't be of good reputation or you could be in trouble. The Justices of the Peace Act 1361 (which is still in force) authorises those selected to be justices the power "to bind over to be of good behaviour all of them that be of good fame (or reputation)".
If that looks odd, they still haven't inserted the missing "not".

I wonder if our resident peeler has been guilty of arranging for the wrong prisoners to be bound over to be of good behaviour.
Peeps need to know.

[J.R.]

I can see you point Julian, but I can also see Google's point.

When I did voluntary teaching to juniors at Brands Hatch, we used to start one specific lecture by showing two slides, one of a rifle, followed by one of a car, and then ask which is the most dangerous.

The majority of the pupils would go for the rifle, which of course, is wrong.

The point we then made, was that both are lethal weapons that must be used RESPONSIBLY !

[englishangel]

Absolutely.

[jtaylor]

Hear hear. I just think Google could also decide not to like dentures, and ban the sale of those - I'm sure a lot of people choke on those each year (both legally-owned dentures, and illegal ones...) It's just as arbitrary....

[gnuvag]

I just hate this sort of thing.............makes me wanna get hold of someone!

J

That's why you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun!

[matthew]

Hear hear. I just think Google could also decide not to like dentures, and ban the sale of those - I'm sure a lot of people choke on those each year (both legally-owned dentures, and illegal ones...) It's just as arbitrary....

Yes, it is.

But guns are controversial in a way that dentures are not. And Google may be worried about ending up liable if they do post an advert that turns out to be illegal. A policy of 'no illegal guns, but sport is OK' might be fairer, but it would require Google to make a judgement about each and every advert. It'd cost them time and money to do that. It's a great deal easier just to toss out anything that mentions a gun.

Still, they're not banning you from selling guns. They can't do that. It's their website, and they don't want to carry your advert. I see how it feels unfair (and they really should give your money back). I don't think it would be any fairer to force Google to advertise things they'd rather not.

[jtaylor]

And Google may be worried about ending up liable if they do post an advert that turns out to be illegal.

I guess though that on that basis they can't really advertise anything which sells anything - they could be accused of advertising for someone who sells stolen goods...