Selected cases

High Court of Australia · [2013] HCA 1

Google v ACCC

A High Court case about sponsored links, platform responsibility and who makes representations in search advertising.

High Court of Australia6 Feb 2013

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Use the linked official source for section-level detail, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Advertisers are responsible for the claims in their search ads.
  • A High Court case about sponsored links, platform responsibility and who makes representations in search advertising.

Use this to check

  • Search ad copy should be treated as a legal representation.
  • Competitor names in ads create trade mark and misleading conduct risk.
  • A platform win does not protect the advertiser who wrote the claim.

Decision snapshot

  1. What happened

    • The case concerned sponsored links generated through Google's advertising system.
    • Some ads displayed a competitor or well-known brand in the headline or link text while directing users to a different advertiser.
    • The ACCC argued Google had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by publishing the sponsored links, not only the advertisers who created them.

  2. What the court had to decide

    • The High Court had to decide whether Google made the misleading representations in the sponsored links, or whether it merely communicated representations made by advertisers through its automated advertising system.

  3. What the court decided

    • The High Court allowed Google's appeal and held that Google had not made the representations in the sponsored links.
    • The decision remains important for platform responsibility, but it does not remove the advertiser's own ACL risk.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Advertisers are responsible for the claims in their search ads.
  • Google won this case on platform responsibility, but a business that writes or approves misleading sponsored links can still be exposed.

Useful next steps

  • Search ad copy should be treated as a legal representation.
  • Competitor names in ads create trade mark and misleading conduct risk.
  • A platform win does not protect the advertiser who wrote the claim.
  • Review search ad headlines and display URLs for competitor or regulator confusion.
  • Do not imply affiliation with another business unless that relationship exists.

Practical read

Google v ACCC is often misunderstood. It was not a free pass for misleading search ads. The High Court focused on whether Google itself made the representations in the sponsored links, and held that in the circumstances it did not. The advertisers were still the ones using the words to sell or redirect customers.

For small businesses, the practical lesson is simple: do not use competitor names, official-looking wording or confusing ad copy unless the claim is accurate and legally checked. The platform's involvement will not make your campaign safe.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Review search ad headlines and display URLs for competitor or regulator confusion.
  • Do not imply affiliation with another business unless that relationship exists.
  • Keep substantiation for claims used in ad copy and landing pages.
  • Check keyword strategy separately from visible ad text.

Key takeaways

  • Search ad copy should be treated as a legal representation.
  • Competitor names in ads create trade mark and misleading conduct risk.
  • A platform win does not protect the advertiser who wrote the claim.

Related topics

Digital & EcommerceConsumer Law & Trading

How Sprintlaw can help

Website Terms and ConditionsTrade Mark Registration