Edelman and Moore, who both call Harvard their home, coauthored a paper titled "Measuring Typosquatting Perpetrators and Funders."  In a blog post summarizing it, they presented several sets of statistics and wrote, "According to our analysis, 57% of typo sites include Google pay-per-click ads."

Then they made a rather more interesting comment regarding the effect of Google’s connection: "Combining our observations with financial reports and others’ estimates, we conclude that Google’s revenue from typosquatting on the top 100,000 sites is $497 million per year."

Also, Google’s pretty much the only search engine they point a finger at, since not nearly as many ads from Yahoo and Microsoft appear on typosquatting sites.

Now, it’s necessary to mention that Edelman is involved in a lawsuit against Google ("arising out of Google’s use of typosquatting domains to display advertising"), so he may not be the least biased person in the world.  The numbers he and Moore presented are still stunning if true.

UPDATE: Ben Edelman was good enough to drop by in the comments section, and he wrote,  "Surely it’s not Google’s fault that some people misspell. But our study [shows] that typosquatters register more domains targeting companies in sectors with high PPC prices. That tells us that PPC funding is *causing* and *exacerbating* typosquatting. Without PPC payments, there would be fewer typosquatting registrations — much less reason for squatters to register these domains. Google’s payments put the system in motion; squatters register domains exactly in anticipation of getting paid by Google. Google knows where it’s showing ads. (Example: Google shows Expedia ads if you misspell Expedia, but Travelocity ads if you misspell Travelocity!) So it’s natural to look to Google for resolution of these problems." 

>> Click to read the rest of Edelman’s comment …

Google makes money by charging advertisers every time a user clicks on a Google advertisement, but in the instances described and documented by Edelman, he makes it appear Google and partners are colluding to intercept traffic to websites that would be navigated directly (and for free) rather than by searching.

Edelman’s claims, presented as they are, seem damning at first glance, but at times the connections seem tenuous and would carry a certain amount of deniability on Google’s part for they all involve third party actions, even if they benefit Google end. Google would not comment on third party/affiliate actions or motivations, so the links and proffered proofs are left to us (via Edelman) to consider. Google also declined to comment about the autocomplete feature on Chrome and whether it is designed to encourage search and discourage direct navigtion.

WhenU

Though in 2004 Google apparently banned WhenU.com from its index for cloaking, the domain has since returned, and the company appears to have forged an affiliate relationship with Google. Also known as WhenU Save/SaveNow, WhenU is advertising software that delivers ads, comparison shopping results, and tracks browsing habits, installed by the user in conjunction with other applications.

With WhenU installed, Edelman’s test exhibits a popup screen covering 80% of a webpage he directly navigated to internet access provider RCN. The popup features Google text ads, one of which is for RCN, the rest for competitors. Edelman suspects many users who’ve installed WhenU simply click on the sponsored search result to arrive at the originally intended destination, thus costing RCN for the click and appearing to be a legitimate conversion.

Edelman cites this as a prime example of Google and a partner interceding in the case of direct navigation in order to boost PPC revenue and give RCN the impression of a high conversion rate.

However, it’s possible, as in all of these examples, that the evidence is circumstantial. WhenU has a history of shady behavior and is still unofficially considered by many as malware or “badware.” It is possible Google is unaware of WhenU’s pop-up practices and that this is a tactic designed to benefit WhenU. Google itself wouldn’t comment on WhenU’s practices.

Google Chrome’s Omnibox

Google’s combination of address and search bar, known as Omnibox, made waves in the browser market with fans cheering the efficiency and critics expressing concern about data collected from it. Edelman enters "Expedia" as an example. Before the entire entry is complete, Chrome suggests outcomes for the user, three of which are searches, one of which is the URL for expedia.com, and a third suggestion, "expedia/," which leads to an error page.

Edelman argues direct navigation is discouraged by placing the intended URL at the third suggestion, after a search result and the suggestion that leads to an error page. “By placing this nonfunctional result prominently in the autocomplete drop-down, above the one working direct link to Expedia, and in the same distinctive green font as the working direct link, Chrome discourages users from exploring direct links,” writes Edelman. “After all, if the prominently-listed "expedia/" link did not work, users are less likely to try the similar-looking link Google ranked lower.”

Because Google designed Chrome this way, this is the most convincing example of Google encouring searching over direct navigation. But proving that motivation is a hard case to make because it involves ignoring all other motivations/ design intentions and requires knowledge of internal engineering directives to which we don’t have access (to which Google won’t grant access, either). 

Any determination of motivation on our part involves significant conjecture, and Edelman may have been a bit selective. The argument assumes the user really wants “expedia” and not “expedition” or “expletive” for that matter, and it ignores other stages appearing in the type field, like the “exp” and earlier stage, or other variations of the query/navigation. Google could and would argue the autocomplete feature is intended to get users to their destinations faster. But Google declined to comment other than to note using the "control" key moves suggested queries to the top of the list.

Typosquatting and SmileyCentral

People who register domains a letter or two different from a legitimate domain in order to catch typo traffic when users make a mistake typing a URL directly are called “typosquatters.” Typosquatters often make money via Google AdSense ads, which appear on the page that is not the intended destination rather than an error page, via Google AdSense for Domains. With Google’s matching technology, often the intended destination is featured in the ads, which users click to continue to where they meant to go. In essence, it is another instance where an advertiser pays for traffic it otherwise would have gotten for free if the user had typed correctly.

Edelman also pegs SmileyCentral, a toolbar provided by IAC, which owns Google’s search rival Ask.com, as a way a Google partner manipulates users into clicking sponsored ads by discouraging direct navigation. The toolbar modifies the users’ web browser by pushing the URL bar to the right instead of its traditional position on the left. A forgetful or unsuspecting user typing a domain in that bar will bring up a search with sponsored ads and may click through to the originally intended destination.

“Google’s actions are even worse than opacity: By claiming to have delivered traffic advertisers would have received anyway, Google tricks advertisers into paying for that traffic — and even tricks advertisers into concluding, mistakenly, that the traffic is a good deal.”

Google wouldn’t comment on how IAC designed its toolbar nor what IAC intended by switching the URL and search fields around. But as far as typosquatting goes, where most often squatters target trademarks, a Google AdSense for Domains spokesperson did manage to reiterate the company’s trademark policy:

"We take trademark violations very seriously. When we are made aware of trademarked terms on sites within the AdSense for Domains program we take immediate action including disallowing ad serving. Trademark owners can find more information here: http://www.google.com/tm_complaint_afd.html."

Third Parties

In all but the Chrome example, Edelman’s arguments hinge upon the actions of partners rather than Google’s direct involvement. While it’s true third party abuse of the system may inflate conversion rates, and that Google may indirectly encourage it, Google retains the ability to disavow actions taken by WhenU, IAC, and typosquatters. But it might be argued Google could be more careful with whom the company associates.

Edelman’s bio lists Google rival Microsoft among his clients. In a world of tenuous links, would that count?
 

Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain that is an errant version of a popular website in order to gain traffic and ad clicks from people who misspell or mistype their intended domain. For example, one might type bankofamrica.com instead of bankofamerica.com. Typosquatting has been illegal in the States since 1999, and is considered trademark infringement in most countries.

In a recent report for McAfee, Edelman said more than 80,000 typosquatting domains for the top 2,000 websites, and singled out Google as the largest ad network contributing to the viability of these sites.

“The largest network in this space is Google, whose AdSense for Domains product and other domain-syndication products serve ads on more than 80 percent of the typosquatting sites recently uncovered by
SiteAdvisor technology,” Edelman wrote.

In that same report, freecreditreport.com was the most targeted, with 742 typosquatting domains registered, followed by cartoonnetwork.com (kids’ sites are often targeted) with 327, youtube.com with 320, craigslist.org with 318, and Google’s own blogspot.com with 276.

Because of the range of companies indicated with possible trademark infringement cases, the suit has been filed as a class action. “We believe class action adjudication is the most efficient way to resolve these companies’ complaints,” Edelman said in The Crimson. “It would be unreasonably complicated, costly, and time-consuming for all trademark holders to sue separately.”

If Google were to abandon the typosquatting industry, he argues, it could be far less of a problem. In a standard statement to the press, Google has said the lawsuit’s claims are “baseless” and that the company would fight the suit vigorously.

If all true, it’s interesting Google would be so lax in dealing with typosquatting domainers. For all the company’s noble efforts to fight other shady practices like malware—most definitely a concern with squatters—various link spam techniques (and paid links certainly), and deceptive marketing tactics, aiding and profiting from typosquatting would be a definite stain on the company’s overall reputation.  
 

Jeremy Kirk reports, "Google, whose AdSense advertising-placement program was used to monetize the domains, was ordered to hold in a special account the first $1 million collected on behalf of the defendants each month.  The second $1 million that accrues in the account every month will be given to the defendants.  If more than $2 million accrues in one month, the money is split between the defendants and the Google account."

Now, maybe the judge was being either optimistic or extremely prepared; after all, it’s a rare teenage boy who couldn’t tell you the first, second, and third $200,000 sports cars he wants to buy.  It honestly sounds like around $2 million is piling up 12 times a year, though.

Dell, by the way, wants most or all of it – Kirk writes that the company "is claiming [the typosquatters'] profits as well as $100,000 per infringing domain used."  So maybe, if you do take this career path, an exit strategy should be thought out beforehand.

But hey, whatever.  At least you’ll briefly own those supercars.

(WebProNews, iEntry, and the author of this article do not endorse typosquatting, blah, blah, blah . . .)

In spite of many attempts to contact Google, they have remained silent on the issue, and continue to serve ads on cit-ihabitats.com, and thousands of other sites just like it.

Google could choose to attempt to keep their network clean, but there is too much money there to ignore it. They are the spam police telling you how you should link. They are not to be questioned in their business practices.

When they screw up, it is the fault of an algorithm or a reflection of the democratic nature of the web, and they didn’t know any better.

Comments

Golf Club Company Takes A Swing At Google

This case’s lead plaintiff is a company called Vulcan Golf, and while a custom club manufacturer seems out of place next to Google, don’t think that this lawsuit is just someone’s get-rich-quick scheme.  Eric Goldman of the Technology & Marketing Law Blog writes, “The plaintiffs’ attorneys did extensive research and provide a lot of detail, so the complaint lacks some of the deficient elements we often see in lawsuits against search engines.”

Yet typosquatting is a tricky field, and Goldman continues, “[T]he lawsuit could be gutted if the judge rules that none of the parties engaged in a trademark use in commerce – an open legal question that has not been resolved in the domainer context.  “Further, the lawsuit could effectively fall apart if the judge rejects formation of a class.”

Other onlookers also feel that Vulcan Golf may be barking up the wrong tree (I’d have worked in a golf reference, but I’m pretty unfamiliar with the game – sorry).  “[I]t’s hard to see how Google can be blamed for a domain owner registering a typosquatted name, even if Google’s ads appear on the site,” states Techdirt’s Mike Masnick.

In any case, at least this domainer suit will provide some variety to Google’s lawyers – all those YouTube-related complaints were probably becoming a bit of a bore.

Microsoft Sends In The Big Guns

Complete with titles enviable by the Department of Homeland Security, Microsoft declared war on cybersquatters and typosquatters using Microsoft trademarks to profit from online advertising.

Taking the lead of the initiative is Internet Safety Enforcement Attorney Aaron Kornblum, who looks to expand the company’s existing anti-phishing Domain Defense Program, operated in conjunction with Microsoft vendor Internet Identity of Tacoma, Wash.

“Microsoft has witnessed a virtual land rush for Internet domain names with the goal of driving traffic for profit,” said Kornblum. “Placing a high profile or pop culture trademark in your domain name is a tempting but illegal way to generate pay-per-click revenue.”

Internet Identity’s director of operations, Rod Rasmussen, said that on an average day more than 2,000 domain names are registered that contain Microsoft trademark terms. Of those, Rasmussen estimates that at least 75 percent are owned by professional domain name holding operations.

“These are all very conservative estimates,” he said. “We’re thinking that we’re really looking at 90 percent or more of domain registrations containing Microsoft trademarks as being these kind of operators.”

Microsoft cites domains like downloadvistaforwindows.com, freehotmail.net, gamesonxbox.com, halochamp.com, and msninforonline.com as examples of registered domain names that are not owned by the company, but are being used as PPC advertising vehicles to generate profits.

The practice registering Web site domains containing trademarked terms that are intended to catch the overflow of mistyped URLs or mislead searchers to profit from them was made illegal under the
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), signed into law by President Clinton in 1999.

The ACPA imposes civil liability of up to US$100,000 in statutory damages for anyone who, with a bad-faith intent to profit, “registers, traffics in or uses a domain name that is identical to, confusingly similar or dilutive of” an existing trademark.

Microsoft has filed two civil lawsuits against a total of four named defendants the company says are profiting from domain names that infringe on its trademarks. The first suit names Jason Cox, of Albuquerque, N.M., Daniel Goggins, of Provo, Utah, and John Jonas, of Springville, Utah, doing business as Jonas and Goggins Studios LLC and Newtonarch LLC. Microsoft says they have registered 324 domain names targeting their intellectual property.

The second suit is against Dan Brown, of Long Beach, Calif., who allegedly registered 85 Microsoft-targeted domain names through his company Partner IV Holdings.

Just because these are the only individuals Microsoft knows by name, that doesn’t mean the company’s not going after 217 “John Doe” registrants. The company says its taking action to “unmask” defendants who have used privacy protection services to conceal their identities. Kornblum admits this will be challenge, as the action seeks to break through the fee-based services offered by domain registrars created to protect registrants’ personal information.

In conjunction with the aggressive litigation campaign, Microsoft will also be targeting online auctions of infringing domain names, seeking to have such auctions removed from online auction houses.

Last in the onslaught is a software tool developed the Strider Typo-Patrol Project, a research group led by Yi-Min Wang. The downloadable tool, called the Strider URL Tracer, allows Web domain owners to track down trademark infringments of their own online brand.

“Microsoft hopes to help Web surfers reach their intended Internet destinations,” Kornblum said. “Where you cross the line is when you misuse someone else’s intellectual property in your domain name.”

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Yahoo! My Web | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews: