Here’s an abridged version for those who don’t want to read the article…

Apparently, Aaron Greenspan, founder of Think Computer Corporation, who has also sued Facebook, decided to use Google Adsense on his site, which, from what I understand, had no content. Based on the following quote, I think it’s pretty clear that he failed to comply with the Program Policies he agreed to when he signed up with Google.

In anticipation of a new product, Think had acquired a brand new domain name that was unexpectedly receiving a high volume of internet traffic. Instead of paying Google for Think’s ads, I thought it might make more sense for Think to get paid for displaying Google’s.

Further on in the article, Greenspan explains that his domain name needed a domain parking service, such as Google Adsense for Domains, which wasn’t available to him when he decided to break the Adsense Program Policies.

Unlike normal AdSense (“for Content,” as it was then re-branded), AdSense for Domains was designed to be used by web sites that were effectively blank. When I had tried to sign up for it previously, given that my domain name needed exactly such a service, it had been “closed”–code for “available to a limited number of companies with large numbers of domain names.”

As if that wasn’t enough, Greenspan goes on to show how he tried to legally skirt the Adsense policy violation by using another service that would be less profitable for him.

I found Sedo, a European company that had a contract with none other than–you guessed it–Google AdSense–to display advertisements on placeholder web sites. By signing up with Sedo, I could once again use AdSense

So, there you have it. This guy shows that he is 100% at fault, chooses to ignore the Adsense Program Policies, complains that he wasn’t able to use the domain parking service before it was available to him and then feels even more wronged when he can’t get in contact with someone at Google who will listen to his petty complaints. He lost $721 that wasn’t his. Get over it.

Where did this go wrong for Google?

Fortunately, for Mr. Greenspan, he filed in small claims court, which means that Google could not send their experienced (and very expensive, I imagine) attorneys to fight this frivolous lawsuit. Instead, Google sent a paralegal named Stephanie Milani, who couldn’t provide the right answers. Mind you, these are answers that thousands of Adsense users could have answered in their sleep. It took me all of a minute (at the most) to find the applicable information…

Google Adsense Program Policies regarding Ad Placement (emphasis added):

Ad Placement

AdSense offers a number of ad formats and advertising products. Publishers are encouraged to experiment with a variety of placements, provided the following policies are respected:

Up to three ad units may be displayed on each page.

A maximum of two Google AdSense for search boxes may be placed on a page.

Up to three link units may also be placed on each page.

Up to three referral units may be displayed on a page, in addition to the ad units, search boxes, and link units specified above.

AdSense for search results pages may show only a single ad link unit in addition to the ads Google serves with the search results. No other ads may be displayed on your search results page.

No Google ad or Google search box may be displayed in a pop-up, pop-under, or in an email.

Elements on a page must not obscure any portion of the ads.

No Google ad may be placed on any non-content-based pages.

No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant.

Whether or not those exact Program Policies were intact when Greenspan signed up for Adsense, the general policy regarding the requirement of content was always included. I just don’t get it. The proof of the policy violation was provided to the judge and it was obviously ignored. Somehow they focused on the idea that Google had no reason to terminate the account. Yes, they did. They told you the reason. The reason is firmly and clearly stated in the Program Policies. But, perhaps is wasn’t presented correctly by the paralegal, or it was completely ignored by the judge. They also focused on the term Google used for the termination, such that Greenspan posed “a significant risk to advertisers.” The risk is that your ads do not provide any value because you do not have content on your site. Regardless, you violated the policies. Case closed.

I had to laugh at the following statement by the judge, where he equates what happened to discrimination based on eye color.

“But you couldn’t terminate my account because of the color of my eyes, could you? I have brown eyes. You couldn’t terminate my account because of that.”

Are you kidding me? There was no discrimination. None.

In the end, $721 + $40 court fees isn’t anything for Google to worry about. The implications, and suggestions by Greenspan for others to sue; however, are much more severe. You can use your imagination as to the number of lawsuits this could bring to Google, or any company, in the future, where policies and terms of service can be completely ignored with no consequence. Some speculate that this could cause Google to pull the plug on Adsense, which is absurd. Paying out all closed accounts would probably be a drop in the bucket for Google. But, such a thing could easily destroy a smaller company.