HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FRENCH CJ,
HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN AND KIEFEL JJGOOGLE INC APPELLANT
AND
AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER
COMMISSION RESPONDENTGoogle Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
[2013] HCA 1
6 February 2013
S175/2012
ORDER
1. Appeal allowed with costs.
2. Set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia made on 3 April 2012 and the orders of the Federal Court of Australia made on 4 May 2012 and, in their place, order that the appeal to the Full Court be dismissed with costs.
On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia
Representation
A J L Bannon SC with C Dimitriadis for the appellant (instructed by Gilbert + Tobin)
S T White SC with K C Morgan for the respondent (instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Trade practices – Misleading or deceptive conduct – Search engine operator displayed "sponsored links" on search results page – Sponsored links created by or at direction of advertisers – Sponsored links comprised advertising text which directed users to web sites of advertisers' choosing – Whether search engine operator engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by publishing or displaying sponsored links which contained misleading representations made by advertisers – Whether search engine operator adopted or endorsed misleading representations.
Words and phrases – "adoption", "endorsement", "intermediary", "misleading or deceptive conduct", "misleading representation".
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 52, 85(3).
FRENCH CJ, CRENNAN AND KIEFEL JJ. The appellant, Google Inc ("Google"), operates the well-known internet search engine "Google" ("the Google search engine")[1]. The respondent, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ("the ACCC"), claims that particular search results displayed by the Google search engine between 2005 and 2008 conveyed misleading and deceptive representations, and that, by publishing or displaying those search results, Google engaged in conduct in contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ("the Act")[2].
[1]The Google search engine is accessible to users in Australia through the web sites google.com and google.com.au.
[2]Section 52 of the Act was replaced on 1 January 2011 by s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, a schedule to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
In July 2007, the ACCC initiated proceedings under Pt VI of the Act, seeking declarations and injunctive relief against Google and another party. At first instance in the Federal Court of Australia, the primary judge (Nicholas J) dismissed the ACCC's application to the extent that it related to Google on the basis that Google had not made the misleading and deceptive representations relied upon by the ACCC[3]. The Full Court of the Federal Court (Keane CJ, Jacobson and Lander JJ) allowed the ACCC's appeal, and made declarations to the effect that Google had contravened s 52 of the Act by publishing the search results[4]. By special leave, Google now appeals to this Court.…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] HCA 1
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether Google, by displaying sponsored links generated by advertisers through its AdWords program, had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. Specifically, the court had to determine whether Google adopted or endorsed the misleading representations contained within those sponsored links, and whether the principles applicable to intermediaries or agents could be applied to Google's conduct in this context.
The High Court reasoned that Google, in displaying sponsored links, was acting as an intermediary that did not create or control the content of those links. The court distinguished Google's role from that of a publisher or advertiser, emphasizing that the search engine merely provided a platform for advertisers to display their own material. The court found that Google did not adopt or endorse the representations made by the advertisers in the sponsored links, and therefore did not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct under section 52 of the Act.
Consequently, the High Court allowed Google's appeal, setting aside the orders of the Federal Court and the Full Court. The appeal to the Full Court was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed with costs.
2. Set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia made on 3 April 2012 and the orders of the Federal Court of Australia made on 4 May 2012 and, in their place, order that the appeal to the Full Court be dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: HAYNE J
Full text does not contain this section.