Guide to the Adsense Banning System

I came across this today and thought it was worth and share and a chuckle:

yfs1 (an acquaintance from another webmaster site) says this:

"Having been unfairly banned myself last year, I wrote a guide for those who have been banned and are looking to get their account back. Basically the first part is theory and the second part is my actual emails to Google. Please keep in mind this is if you DIDN'T violate the TOS. If you did by accident, you can still try it although I can't say it would work (or should)"

Getting Your AdSense Account Back (http://www.yfs1.com/2006/you-too-can-be-banned-from-adsense-with-no-money-down-enquire-within.html)

Examples of Emails to Get Your Account Back (http://www.yfs1.com/2006/you-too-can-be-banned-from-adsense-with-no-money-down-enquire-within-part-2.html)

If you don't even know what a TOS is, you may want to start with AdSense TOS for The Lazy (http://www.yfs1.com/2006/adsense-has-a-tos-a-summary-for-the-lazy.html)

Interesting ... so, in order that you might be permitted to use your site to carry Google ads (of their choosing) you should grovel and kiss butt I think the man says. I cannot think of any other form of media in which such perverse logic applies.

I look at it slightly differently: I have paid for and worked long and hard (with others in my team) on developing my sites. Legally, they are my property not Google's or anyone else.
If I (or someone else) make an error which is a technical breach of my agreement with Google, then I would expect to be given the opportunity to know what it is I am alleged to have done and the right to put my case in reply. And I would expect this BEFORE any arbitrary right to close my account and confiscate money I have already earned under the terms of that account has been exercised. This is the foundation of what is know as 'natural justice', which underpins 'the rule of law'.

Now I happen to know that this is not how Google chooses to work. And without wishing to be unnecessarily offensive, the way Google's Adsense team works is nothing short of unjust and inequitable - a blatant and arbitrary system of it being judge, jury, and executioner.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this bizarre policy of Google's whereby it without notice closes accounts and confiscates monies due without the account holder being given a prior opportunity consistent with the principles of natural justice will either change or, in the fullness of time, bring Google to its knees. At present, my money is on the latter being the most likely outcome. :(

Biggles LLB

Well, I doubt it. Although It appears Google has lightened up on banning as I dont see so many "Help Ive Been Banned" threads floating around the webmaster sites lately.

I myself was banned by Google last year for invalid clicks. I took a unique approach. I wrote a letter explaining my situation, and explaining that webmasters are being unfairly targeted by Google and losing income due to the furor over invalid clicks.

I then emailed that letter to every reporter and editor I could find that wrote something about invalid clicks. I must have contacted 200 people.

My adsense account was back on the next day... :) No questions asked. I was told by an editor that he had contacted Google and was told my account was shut down by mistake.

Well, in a way you are agreeing with me Joey, for which I am grateful. I have an active Adsense account and have not been banned. It was my better half who suffered an unjust account cancellation and confiscation of her money.

Having read the message sent to her, I have taken the views expressed above and factored in the applicable English law. Although Google asserts that unauthorised clicking is the cause for cancellation, it offers no proof of that assertion and provides no opportunity for its account holders to rebut any allegations. This is not right and may constitute a fundamental breach of warranty in English law. More importantly, it would not be upheld as justifiable in any English court of law. It just takes one successful legal action to establish the necessary precedent and Google will be forced to either change or go bust.

I don't want to see Google go bust but its current practice is wholly unacceptable in any decent society.

Biggles LLB

Having read the message sent to her, I have taken the views expressed above and factored in the applicable English law. Although Google asserts that unauthorised clicking is the cause for cancellation, it offers no proof of that assertion and provides no opportunity for its account holders to rebut any allegations. This is not right and may constitute a fundamental breach of warranty in English law. More importantly, it would not be upheld as justifiable in any English court of law. It just takes one successful legal action to establish the necessary precedent and Google will be forced to either change or go bust.


What you haven't included though is the agreement you sign (electronically) when you sign up as an AdSense Publisher in which you agree your account can be closed with no payment of suspect funds for any reason.

I can tell you they have spent a lot of time and resources writing it in a way that does not obviously violate law.

As far as technique for reinstatement, I was previously aware of Joey's situation and reinstatement and I can't dispute it worked (It kinda gets around the legal action threat by having the third party ask Google about it), although I'm not sure its a real option for everyone.

As far as the sucking up comments, I just know what works and has worked for a lot of people who have followed the advice since I first published it. I'm not making a judgement on whether its right or not, thats for the blogs and discussion forums. For me, there was a decent amoutn of money invloved so I had no problem taking that approach. In addition, I have never had a problem since and I tend not to be as critical of programs that deliver the cash (Much more succesfully then Yahoo, Chikita, etc which is a shame)

Cheers

Well, one thing also is that should legal action for something like this be brought, Google could be forced to demonstrate how they determined the clicks were invalid. They arent prepared to make such a showing in my opinion as it would reveal some of their trade secrets. So a credible legal threat, with the appropriate steps taken, (i.e. letter from law firm) Google easily can determine its not worthwhile to fight, especially since these kinds of things rarely involve sums Google would consider large. (Under $5k and Google would spend more in lawyers fees) -

What I did was to point out that there was another side to the click fraud story. (which was getting alot of play at the time) I pointed out that innocent webmasters were getting caught up in the story and taking losses. My approach was a true one, since at the time, many publishers were getting banned when they had done nothing, presumebly so Gooogle could show they were doing "something" about click fraud.

Well, one thing also is that should legal action for something like this be brought, Google could be forced to demonstrate how they determined the clicks were invalid. They arent prepared to make such a showing in my opinion as it would reveal some of their trade secrets. So a credible legal threat, with the appropriate steps taken, (i.e. letter from law firm) Google easily can determine its not worthwhile to fight, especially since these kinds of things rarely involve sums Google would consider large. (Under $5k and Google would spend more in lawyers fees) - .
If you are serious about following through with a lawsuit, then I do think Google reacts differently. Part of that seriousness is showing you would be persuing the case in California (Persuant to the agreement). My advice to never threaten legal action unless you intend to follow through is because people think emailing, "I am going to sue you" will have some influence. Your account gets filed away while they wait for the legal papers.

If they actually received the legal papers, it may be a different story although I have very little experience with that.

Agreed. The "I am going to sue you" line is generally ignored by most businesses.

What you haven't included though is the agreement you sign (electronically) when you sign up as an AdSense Publisher in which you agree your account can be closed with no payment of suspect funds for any reason.

I can tell you they have spent a lot of time and resources writing it in a way that does not obviously violate law.Hi yfs1, interesting points you make.

However, you are obviously unschooled in English law. You suggest that the action can only be brought in California (I think you said) because the contract says so. May I respectfully suggest that Google AdSense operates a business based in the UK. If the transaction is executed in the UK, and my other half's and my own were insofar as they were executed electronically in the UK with AdSense UK, the monies were paid through a UK bank and received at a UK bank, there was a freebie offered by my former host which deposited £30 in the account which was not expended but was confiscated as a part of the overall cancellation of the account, and the allegations laid were not proven etcetera. So, there is a distinct possibility that UK courts would accept that the matter was within their jurisdiction. Even if not so, what Google does is totally reprehensible and unjustifiable, no matter where you might sue.

You and Joey are right to some extent, though I favour Joey's view. There is no doubt at all that a giant like Google with $10 billion of money gathered from the likes of me and you would not bother spending money defending a legal action claiming a few measly dollars or pounds. However, MacDonalds spent a fortune suing a couple of conservation activists for libel over here. Destroyed them financially, had them horsewhipped by the legal profession. It was not until the matter was brought in the European Court of Human Rights that these two unfortunates beat the rap and were suitably compensated (if it's ever possible to compensate someone for destroying their private and family lives).

You are also right to suggest that threats like 'I am going to sue you' have no viable effect. However, subtlety like Joeys is effective for a less obvious reason. Threats to sue don't worry, but threats to expose malpractice and wrongdoing have a very significant effect upon those who know they are guilty of it. There is no doubt in my mind that Google knows full well that the vast majority of its cancellation actions are not based upon any demonstrable wrong committed by the victim. And Joey is perfectly right to suggest that its actions may be based upon a need to show it is doing something about invalid clicking.

It seems pretty clear to me that Google's methods are full of holes through which a half decent barrister might drive a coach and horses. Like I said before, I don't particularly want to see Google go down. But go down it will unless it begins to treat the little man out there with some moral integrity and respect. Or I'll eat my hat.



Kindest regards

Biggles LLB