Six of the eight most expensive Google AdSense search terms are for attorneys (the other two are for mortgage and loan refinancing), with “mesothelioma lawyers” topping the charts at $54.33. A regularly updated page can be found here. (CyberWyre blog, Mar. 23 (h/t Slim)). Earlier search-engine follies: Apr. 8, 2004; Nov. 18, 2004.
(“McDonalds coffee lawsuit” [sic] goes for $0.67, which is a shame, because the top ten links all refer back to ATLA’s propaganda on the subject. Perhaps if our blogging readers could link to our coverage…?)
Update: Clearly, there’s a lot of competition for that “mesothelioma lawyer” keyword, given the $54.33 price; this is because there is a lot of easy profit to be made on mesiothelioma cases by lawyers: there are so many defendants, and so many cases, that attorneys and defendants find it cheaper to settle for nuisance sums, which add up quickly to an automatic profit for the attorney, even if the case is tried and lost against recalcitrant defendants who dare to expose themselves to lottery litigation (cf. also POL Jun. 10, 2005). The interesting question is what market failure has occurred such that this gigantic profit is not being competed away by, say, offering clients a smaller attorneys’ fee. This is surplus that should be going to clients, not to Google. Is there collusion not to lower attorneys’ fees? If consumer advocates cared about consumers, rather than attorneys, we might see some investigation into the matter.
I’ve refused to publish a few comments. Reasons why in the jump.
Multiple commenters have drawn the connection between the fact that a click on an ad merits a $54 charge and the fact that a distasteful ambulance-chaser will be paying the $54 charge to suggest an obvious strategy to penalize ambulance chasers. Even if I were to condone such a strategy (which, let’s be clear, I think to be unethical), I certainly would not be inclined to propose such actions against a potentially litigious party, or even to perform it in an age where IP addresses are trackable and judges are unclear how broad to make anti-hacking law. See also Mar. 15.
5 Comments
Google AdWords
Lawyers dominate the Google AdSense keywords, with mesothelioma lawyers commanding over $54. (Via Consumerist; I see Overlawyered picked up on it too.) One project I’ve thought about but never quite gotten around to is to test the predictive value of
The recalcitrance to entice users to click on google ads for “mesothelioma” is unfounded. Every so often, any given site lists the most popular Google AdWords, and every time that happens, users go nuts and click on the Ads, charging lawyers money. There is nothing wrong with this. The price they bid on takes into account that most clickthrus will not end up with a case. Hundreds of clicks from one IP address is click fraud. One click from hundreds of IP addresses is not.
Again, let’s be clear: my recalcitrance is based on my belief that it’s unethical and shouldn’t be done, and that my readers shouldn’t do it either.
Kingmanor makes a very good argument for non-liability. Unfortunately, it would cost me tens of thousands of unrecoverable dollars to make the same argument were I to be sued (we see how responsive Google is to subpoenas), and I could think of too-clever-by-half counterarguments that would keep a suit alive needlessly. And vindicating this right, compared to other rights the plaintiffs’ bar is threatening to take away, is not an effective use of my time.
Ted, There is at least one consumer advocate who puts consumer interests first over lawyer’s financial interests. See ethicalEsq’s Challenge to Public Citizen: Help Fix the Contingency Fee System (get the current rules enforced and clients informed).
Of course, this position gets me hate mail from p/i lawyers [from the first week as a weblogger three years ago to just last week] And, as I’ve often stated, I’m not even a tort reformer.
I agree with you that punitive-prank click-throughs on AdWords are unethical and not
Superstars, Lawsuits, and the Public Interest
Alex, My intention today was to get fully into my critique of your article with Eric Helland, but after your most recent post, I again wanted to clarify some theoretical issues. To keep this entry at a readable length, I’m…