First of all, let's assume
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2025 9:21 am
Google and the platform also make money from these fake ads, by the way. But they bravely claim that they are doing everything possible to stop it, but are powerless. The largest and most powerful search engine in the world with thousands of specialists, with the world's largest branch outside the USA in Zurich? Corporations like Ringier or Tamedia?
And if you think that abuse and fraud in Google Ads myanmar rcs data is not such a big problem, a few figures should convince you otherwise: The website clickguardian.co.uk estimates that the damage caused by click fraud increased by 227 percent from 2016 to 2018. From 7.2 billion to an estimated 27.2 billion dollars worldwide. One in five clicks on an ad came from a bot.
Obviously, two events are needed for something to really happen. that Coop advertises in the "Blick": "Grilled sausages! Half price! Only for a short time!" And then Coop gets feedback from concerned "Blick" readers that they have uncovered a fake ad, half price for sausages, nonsense, but it looks deceptively similar to a Coop ad, and they just wanted to make it known.
And then: The first victim, and of course there are some in Switzerland too, realizes that he will definitely not get his money back from the scammer - and therefore demands compensation from Google and/or the platform that tricked him. Should he then be told: You're stupid yourself, who trusts our ads anyway? That would probably be a bit suboptimal. And legally, complicity, involvement, a sensitive issue to say the least.
And if you think that abuse and fraud in Google Ads myanmar rcs data is not such a big problem, a few figures should convince you otherwise: The website clickguardian.co.uk estimates that the damage caused by click fraud increased by 227 percent from 2016 to 2018. From 7.2 billion to an estimated 27.2 billion dollars worldwide. One in five clicks on an ad came from a bot.
Obviously, two events are needed for something to really happen. that Coop advertises in the "Blick": "Grilled sausages! Half price! Only for a short time!" And then Coop gets feedback from concerned "Blick" readers that they have uncovered a fake ad, half price for sausages, nonsense, but it looks deceptively similar to a Coop ad, and they just wanted to make it known.
And then: The first victim, and of course there are some in Switzerland too, realizes that he will definitely not get his money back from the scammer - and therefore demands compensation from Google and/or the platform that tricked him. Should he then be told: You're stupid yourself, who trusts our ads anyway? That would probably be a bit suboptimal. And legally, complicity, involvement, a sensitive issue to say the least.