Using Misleading Keyword Advertising to Draw Consumers Away from Actual Complaint Web Sites
By Paul Levy
ADVERTISEMENTS
pby Paul Alan Levy/ppThe CBS affiliate in Atlanta has been a href=http://www.cbs46.com/health/18000035/detail.html#-running a series about Lifestyle Lift/a, a company a href=http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2007/12/the-hazards-of.htmlpreviously discussed in this blog/a because of its attempt to suppress criticism by filing spurious trademark claims against a href=http://www.leonardfitness.com/justin_leonard_bio.htmJustin Leonard/a, who operated the consumer commentary site infomercialscams.com where criticisms as well as praise for Lifestyle Lift could be posted.#0160; Lifestyle Lift has now a href=http://www.cbs46.com/news/18286346/detail.htmlsued the Atlanta news station/a for having had the temerity to provide both sides of the story, and the station has, in turn, run a story on Lifestyle?s penchant for suing its critics.#0160; (See Part 5 of the story)/ppContact with the station about their series inspired me to do a Google search for Lifestyle Lift for the first time since we defended Leonard against the Lifestyle Left suit.#0160; The discussion pages about a href=http://www.infomercialscams.com/scams/lifestyle_lift_complaintsLifestyle Lift at infomercialscams.com/a and a href=http://www.realself.com/Lifestyle-lift/reviewsRealSelf.com/a ? another web site previously targeted by Lifestyle for trademark litigation ? remained near the top of the unpaid search results, but I was intrigued to notice what seemed to be a new consumer complaint site at a href=http://www.citizen.org/documents/LifestyleLiftGoogle.pdfthe top of the sponsored links/a:#0160; /ppa href=http://pubcit.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b7a769e2010536801faa970c-pi style=display: inline;img alt=Lifestyle Lift Blog graphic border=0 class=at-xid-6a00d83451b7a769e2010536801faa970c src=http://pubcit.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b7a769e2010536801faa970c-320pi title=Lifestyle Lift Blog graphic //a
/ppBut clicking on this first ad leads not to a complaint site, or to a balanced review site, but to a a href=http://www.citizen.org/documents/LifestyleLiftSafety.pdfweb page created by Lifestyle Lift/a itself.#0160; The page not only does not contain any complaints, it does not even discuss any complaints, even in the course of explaining why any complaints are ill-founded.#0160; Toward the bottom of the page is hyperlinked anchor text that reads ?Read Lifestyle Lift Client Reviews,? but that link leads to another a href=http://www.citizen.org/documents/LifestyleLiftANewday.pdfLifestyle Lift created page/a#0160; that provides only positive reviews of the product.#0160; The ?former Stanford doctor? who supposedly speaks out is in fact the medical director of Lifestyle Lift./p
pbr /Such use of misleading Google ads is not new.#0160; While infomercialscams.com was defending against Lifestyle Lift?s trademark litigation, we noticed a keyword ad that stated ?Infomercial Scams - Lifestyle Lift complaints,? showing the web address http://www.myfaceliftstory.com.#0160; The banner across the top of that site read ?Consumer Alert Report: what every consumer should know about ? Lifestyle Lift,? and the web site appeared to be offered by an independent user who was very satisfied with her experience, followed by numerous ?reviews? all of which were positive (in fact, the design was similar to other web sites offered by Lifestyle Lift itself).#0160; The only function of the sponsored ad seemed to be to draw consumers interested in learning about possible criticisms of Lifestyle Lift away from the commentary pages to be found in the unpaid results.br / /ppTrademark holders have frequently used litigation to suppress the use of keyword ads to promote advertising by their competitors, even when the ads were not at all misleading.#0160; We have a href=http://www.citizen.org/documents/rescuecomamicus.pdfargued in the pas/at that there is nothing inherently misleading about the use of keyword advertising, so long as the ads themselves are non-deceptive.#0160; If a company wants to use non-deceptive keyword advertising to draw attention to web pages that explain why criticisms are misinformed, more power to it.#0160; But such deceptive keyword advertising, as part of an overall strategy to suppress criticism, is deplorable./ppAre there viable theories for pursuing the use of deceptive keyword ads by the trademark holders themselves?#0160; A number of theories come to mind.#0160; Consumers might bring a a href=http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/staff/061211staffopiniontocommercialalert.pdfdeceptive marketing complaint to the FTC/a, or might sue under such state consumer laws as a href=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpcamp;group=17001-18000amp;file=17500-17509%20section 17500/a of the California Business and Professions Code.#0160;#0160; Or, perhaps a competitor of Lifestyle Lift might contend that the Google ads are deceptive promotions and file suit under a href=http://www.lawpublish.com/s5.html%20section 43(a)(2) of the Lanham Act/a. /ppbr / /p
