CLICK FRAUD LIABILITY AND THE MEANING OF "USER"

A California district court considered the issue of whether the language of the contract entered into by the advertiser and a Web publisher was such so as to exempt the advertiser from paying fees for fraudulent clicks on its advertisements. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that meaning of the term “user” was a triable issue.

The following questions have been addressed in this article:

What are the facts and the legal issue of this case?
What did the court hold?
What arguments did the plaintiffs use to support their interpretation of the term “user” as referring to “potential clients”?
What was the defendants’ interpretation of the word “user”?
What other examples of contractual language concerning click fraud liability were considered by the court?

Continue...

Facebook Twitter RSS