Misleading and deceptive conduct is banned because (apart from the immorality of it when intentional) it makes markets less efficient. Market participants are less able to make rational economic decisions if they are misinformed.

Why should Google be exempted from this? Does anyone really buy the argument that Google should be exempted because its richer than the person who places the ad? That is the logical conclusion of the argument in this article.

Google's motivation for accepting these ads is economic. Google has, through very clever business strategy, made itself probably the single most important information portal in the world. More power to Google for its success. However, if it is out to make a profit, it must compete fairly for both moral and rational reasons.

To say that Google is being made a victim of regulation unsuited to the internet age is to put up a straw man. No-one in the internet age seriously contends that the strongest competitors should be relieved of their responsibility to behave ethically and efficiently. No-one can seriously contend that the economy, overall, will be more efficient if Google is allowed to be indifferent to basic commercial ethics.

I agree that commercial regulation is over the top in some areas. Suggesting that the entrepreneur that develops a totally new product should be forced to give access to someone else so that they can compete is a good example of where competition regulation goes awry. However, that example does not inform the central point of this article. It is both immoral and economically inefficient to profit from deception, whether innocent or intentional. It is no answer to say that one's business model is at odds with the responsibility to behave truthfully. That simply represents an inherently flawed business model.

"economically inefficient to profit from deception"

which planet are you from? or at?

very few things are sold without a lot of money being spent on puffing up the product. maybe the world is imperfect? maybe deception is inefficient except in dealing with humans?

personally, i think deception is a bad thing, and i told my girlfriend so, after she took her bra off. but it was too late, the sock in my jockeys was on the floor as well.

Given that you imply that I am stupid, perhaps you can explain, in 50 words or less, what you undertand "economic efficiency" to mean?

One clue: It has nothing to do with the fact that you have to lie to your girlfriend to get her into bed.

if they pay you to talk like that, you're not stupid. deceptive, maybe.

outside of ivory towers, the whole world defines economic efficiency as "money out/effort in."

and at least we got each other into bed.

What is the point here? The author indicates it is the integrity of the content of the ads is the issue while I heard on the ABC a few days ago that the argument is Google had ads on its returned results page which were supposed to be confusing to Internet users.

If the ACCC thinks Google needs to be responsible for the accuracy of the displayed ads then the Sydney Morning Herald and Channel 9 (among others) should also be held responsible. On the other hand if the ACCC thinks that Internet users are confused by the displaying of ads with search argument returned results, the ACCC should open their Internet fire wall a little so that the bureaucrats can personally experience the differentiation Google displays. If they are still confused it could explain a lot about the activities of the ACCC.