zlacker

>>yuvada+(OP)
At the risk of downvotes: Is anyone really surprised?

AdNauseam is silently clicking ads. This directly costs Google money. Google happens to control the extension web store for their own browser. Removing it from the store really isn't that bad. Uninstalling it from existing browsers as malware? A little more malicious, but I would still consider it self defense.

There is even a method to install it directly[1] which AFAIK Google has not blocked.

Granted, if Google were not both running the browser and the ad network, these actions probably wouldn't have been taken. But the whole attitude that this is some sort of tyrannical thing is a little over the top.

1. https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/Install-AdNauseam-on...

>>Spoom+ga
People should still be giving Google shit for decisions like that, even if they're not surprised.

>>ben0x5+sb
If you look at it as the extension performs fraud, then what Google did is completely defensible. And I feel that it does. You may not feel that way exactly, but it's certainly justifiable that the extensions actions defraud the ad network.

>>fryguy+si
Fraud? If a user wants to automate his browser to click all ads encountered as he surfs, that's fraud?

>>mattle+sj
Fraud is a poor word choice, because it is a legal term. There must be a better word out there.

>>em3rge+bl
Attorney here! (But not your attorney and not giving legal advice -- seek qualified counsel in your state if you need assistance.)

Sending automated clicks to ads arguably meets all the elements of common-law fraud:

(1) A false representation of fact (that the user clicked on the ad);

(2) Knowledge of the falsity (by the user installing and using the extension);

(3) Intent to deceive the party by making the false representation (that is the extension's stated purpose!);

(4) Reasonable reliance by the innocent party (by believing the "click" was real and intended);

(5) Actual loss suffered (by paying the owner/operator of the page containing the ad)

In my view, therefore, "fraud" is an applicable term.

>>otterl+Fp
You're missing a few elements. One of which is, "the injured party’s right to rely thereon"[0] (unless that's what you mean by #4 above).

"A party does not have a right to rely on a representation if she is aware the representation is false, not enforceable, or not made to her."

It's clearly arguable that the ad network knows that a browser is able to click on an ad in an automated fashion. Thus, they do not have a right to rely on that representation, as it is not enforceable.

[0] - http://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/legal-articles/common-law-...

>>dsp123+tH
Knowing that it is possible for a representation to be falsified (what you describe the ad network as knowing) is very far from knowing that it is false (the branch of the standard you appear to be appealing to argue a lack of right-to-rely.) So, I don't think the argument, as you've made it, is convincing.