This is disgusting--plain and simple. Not only is this an obvious abuse of the judicial system, but it is a valuable insight into the real attitude of Google HQ. I'm taking my personal data elsewhere.
Its been bung, Google.
EDIT: I understand the implications for a domain-squatting precedent here, but the tactics used by Google are still inexcusable. As a company as influential and powerful as they are, they have an unwritten obligation to treat their customers with respect. What the author of this post did was wrong (note: I am not the author, blhack's reply is not directed towards me). With all of the data Google has at its disposal, however, how difficult is it to give the man a straight answer when he asks for it? Our society is in a constant battle against corporate greed and the evil that it brings. The last thing we need is Google leading the way with this despicable behavior (selling term papers? really??).
I know the guy that did this posts here. So this is to him: I am calling you out.
What you did was wrong. As a geek you should know this. People that squat on domains hoping that people typo a URL and land on your page covered in ads is a cancer on the DNS.
NOT ONLY is it a cancer on the DNS, it steals money from people who are legitimately trying to promote their own products.
I have a little social news website that my friends and I post on. Yeah it is tiny, yeah it is worthless, yeah it is probably a complete and total mess of code that is wide open to any number of vulnerabilites, but you know what? It's my baby.
I'm broke. I'll admit that. I don't make a lot of money. But ONCE, I decided to splurge a little bit on some google ads. Yeah, it was $50, yeah it was stupid and pointless and I'm not going to recoup it, but this is my hobby and I think it's fun.
I cannot even imagine how absolutely blindingly infuriated (not to mention heartbroken) I would have been if I would have found out that this small ammount of money that I decided to "invest" in my little project had been squandered on some asshole leeching money from people with a landing page.
Those clicks are expensive. That $700 or whatever you earned came from people like ME.
You violated their terms of service and you deserved everything that you got as a result of it.
I know we're supposed to be civil here, but honestly man, fuck you. What you did was very barely (if at all) above a pyramid scheme.
Yes, domain squatting sucks and the writer should follow google's TOS. Further, I don't disagree that he should have lost this case. Now just because he didn't have content on the site doesn't mean that he was squatting - he may have had future plans for the domain. But I agree the advertisers should not be charged for ads that were not presented as they should have been.
That said, I think a ban from adsense for a single infraction without a means for appeal or feedback is a scary prospect for legitimate users who may make a small mistake from time to time. This sequence of events would make me think twice about building a business based on this model.
"Now just because he didn't have content on the site doesn't mean that he was squatting - he may have had future plans for the domain."
Oh please. That's just too easy. "Hey, I'm doing something harmful, pointless, illegal and unsavory... but I have plans to do something less shitty some day! Give me a free pass. What can I get away with today?..."
I clearly missed something - is it really that "harmful, pointless, illegal and unsavory" to have a domain that's not in use showing an ad? Yes, it's a misuse of adwords, but he could have used a more appropriate ad service. I doubt he's a squatter since 1. it sounds like he's only doing this on one domain and 2. the domain was related to his company name and wasn't some other company's name (correct me if I'm wrong here) or a misspelling. In the article, he says his company is "think" and the link was related to that. To me, this is not squatting.
Just curious, but don't you think you should accept the risk wrt ROI on CPC ad campaigns? Yes, it might not convert. It might not even be seen by anybody remotely interested in your product. But that's the nature of it. And the nature of business. Isn't it?
Meh. I have no sympathy. You've got no money to pay for an attractive domain name so you think I should just give you mine and I'm a bad guy because I'm making a few bucks waiting for a buyer who's got his shit together? Sorry, no. Sucks to be you.
You fail reading comprehension forever. The complaints that you mistakenly think you addressed are:
1. Domain squatters who sit on slightly misspelled domain names (e.g. ycobinator.com, gooogle.com, etc.) and hope someone will accidentally see their ads are parasites on the DNS.
2. This practice lowers the return on investment for people who are trying to advertise something. Micro-advertising keeps a lot of web sites afloat and helps make the web's economy more fluid, so that small businesses without brand name recognition can level the playing field a little. Domain squatters who siphon off ad money by putting ads on crappy parked domain pages that people go to by mistake and leave immediately are unworthy leeches sucking the blood from the internet. They harm others and contribute nothing of value.
You seem to be exclusively defending the kind of domain squatting where you register some attractive domain name like "fishandchips.com" and leave it fallow until someone buys it from you. That does not address anything that blhack said.
Although you raise some valid questions, a legal staffer's 'low blow' in a court is not commensurate with the policy of the company. Our adversarial court system unfortunately rewards such tactics, and it's not like there was a board meeting in Mountain View to establish the paralegal's courtroom decision tree.
Its been bung, Google.
EDIT: I understand the implications for a domain-squatting precedent here, but the tactics used by Google are still inexcusable. As a company as influential and powerful as they are, they have an unwritten obligation to treat their customers with respect. What the author of this post did was wrong (note: I am not the author, blhack's reply is not directed towards me). With all of the data Google has at its disposal, however, how difficult is it to give the man a straight answer when he asks for it? Our society is in a constant battle against corporate greed and the evil that it brings. The last thing we need is Google leading the way with this despicable behavior (selling term papers? really??).