Our search editor offers 90 million reasons to pass on this settlement.

The highly publicized recent settlement reached in a suit against Google that provides for partial refunds for advertisers has left far more questions than answers in the click fraud debate.

Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, et al. v. Google-- et al may be the most controversial aspect of the longest running debate in search. The short version? A relatively quick settlement was reached to the tune of 90 million dollars, and all advertisers that purchased advertising since January 1, 2002 are automatically class members in this suit. 

That's it folks, gather your reports and line up for a refund.

Of course there are one or two things you should know about the case. A few details, if you will, that might be of interest to you as an advertiser.

Dewey, Cheatem and Howe
The first little detail you should be aware of in this case relates to the 90 million dollar figure. While that number represents a mere pittance of revenues achieved from search engine advertising, the big money appears to be earmarked for defense counsel.

While the court will ultimately decide plaintiff's counsel's compensation, the terms of the settlement provide for counsel to seek maximum compensation of slightly more than 33 percent. There is a further provision that Google will not dispute the compensation up to 30 million dollars.

The hearing to determine whether the settlement and fees are fair has been tentatively scheduled for July 24 and 25 beginning at nine AM and will be held in the Juvenile Courtroom in Texarkana, Arkansas.

The Juvenile Courtroom; how prophetic.

If you happen to be in Texarkana that week, you may want to stop in for a visit. Just remember that if you want to speak at the hearing, you must ask the court's permission.

Plaintiff's council's fees will undoubtedly include costs and compensation for consultants and experts retained in the course of this action. I would be interested to see who else is cashing in on this action.

If you were at all wondering why such an enormous suit alleging breach of contract on such a gigantic scale didn't result in a trial, consider the following: A contract with Google for advertising stipulates that any disputes will be subject to the laws of the state of California, not Arkansas.

Had the litigation progressed, it probably would have been removed to the Golden State and therefore been a bit more complicated.

The definition of insanity
Ninety million dollars is the limit of compensation for all advertisers. Once plaintiff's council receives their compensation, a fund will be established to provide compensation for advertisers.

Think you might get a cash refund? Perish the thought-- said compensation will be provided in the form of advertising credits for future advertising. Specifically, credits may be applied up to 50 percent of the costs of future advertising purchases. 

Yes, you read that correctly.

If you would like to submit a claim, you may do so by submitting the appropriate form no later August 4, 2006 and Google will assess the validity of your claim.

Yes, you read that correctly as well.

If you accept a credit, you also agree to waive your rights to future litigation against Google and any partners where advertising may appear. Further, you will be bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or not.

YOU CAN OPT OUT
You may opt out of this action by submitting the appropriate forms. On May 19 and 20, a settlement firm sent an email to advertisers with a subject line that read "Important Legal Notice Regarding Your Google AdWords Account" with the details.

I wonder how many of those emails went immediately into the deleted or spam folders.

You have 30 days from the date of the notice to postmark your signed letter requesting removal from the action.

You can also object to the settlement, in writing, by sending letters to all three of the following: Clerk of the Miller County Circuit Court, George L. McWilliams of Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, LLP, and Daralyn J. Durie of  Keker & Van Nest, LLP.

I have provided a link to the settlement website below if some letter writing is in your future.

The perfect crime
The issue of whether or not Google or other search providers screen for erroneous clicks is not an issue here. Every search provider claims to have systems in place to help monitor and remove fraudulent clicks. Indeed, many clicks are removed before advertisers are invoiced for them. 

The genuine concern should be who is responsible for auditing click traffic. Leaving the search providers in charge of this task is a bit too close to leaving the fox in charge of the hen house. As I have said before, an industry group that represents advertisers would be a solid choice to lead such an effort, but no such effort exists today.

Until we see advertisers represented adequately with an industry initiative, standards for reporting and refunding fraudulent click costs will not move forward. The process of evaluating and reporting false traffic obviously exist, but they cannot be made public due to concerns surrounding the security and validity of the information.

Signifying nothing
I am not sure who to hit over the head with the proverbial brick first. Google? Not a chance. Google acted in the best interest of Google and you really can't fault them for that. The advertisers? Probably not, since the click fraud issue is so convoluted, it's hard to blame them.

Plaintiff's counsel, on the other hand, sounds like a good place to start.

In the end, only the lawyers will get paid; advertisers might get some credit toward future click fraud, and advertisers agree to waive any right to future litigation. Unfortunately, none of the real issues surrounding click fraud were addressed with this settlement, and the debate continues.

Additional resources:
Download the settlement notice and FAQ
Click Fraud Back in the News
Click Fraud On the Rise