zlacker

click fraud consists of the person who runs a website themselves clicking, running bots to click, paying someone else to click, etc ads on their own website. it becomes fraud first because they have contractually agreed not to do that, and second because they are materially benefiting from it. an unaligned third party clicking (etc) on ads has neither of those conditions being true, and hence isn't fraud or otherwise illegal.

>>bmanda+(OP)
Doubtful.

If you intentionally loop-download large files or fake requests on websites that you don't like, in order to create big CDN charges for them, then what ?

Without reaching the threshold of Denial of Service, just sneakily growing it.

Nobody benefits, except for the weird idea of the pleasure of harming people, still illegal.

>>rvnx+t
You are just wrong on many levels and keep repeating the same mistruths.

>>rvnx+t
Doubtful

Not doubtful at all. He literally laid out the definition of click fraud for you.

As someone who ran ads on web sites as far back as 1995, that has been the term the industry has used forever.

Replying with a dismissive "doubtful" demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.

>>reaper+ZR
Yes, doubtful it is not fraud, just because you didn’t sign a contract does not prevent it from being fraud.

And it is fine to use the terms click fraud when you conduct artificial clicks with the intent:

Examples:

https://integralads.com/insider/what-is-click-fraud/#:~:text...

One of the top leading company of traffic filtering is literally using these words to describe that.

Other users even 10 years ago:

>>13328628

+ sources from court:

> The opinion states: “click fraud” can occur when “either a (natural) person, automated script, or computer program, sometimes referred to as a `bot,’ simulates the click activity of a legitimate user by clicking on the Program Data displayed, but without having an actual interest in its subject matter or content.”

Etc