2022年1月17日

Baidu sued artificial volume platforms for interfering with search engines and was awarded 2 million yuan

China New Finance on January 13, recently, the first case involving artificial brush platform interference search engine algorithm unfair competition dispute in Beijing Haidian Court.

According to the public number of Beijing Haidian Court news, because that network companies through the establishment of advertising task release platform and other behaviors, to help users create false click data, disrupt the sorting results, the plaintiff Beijing Baidu Net News Technology Co., Ltd. will be the defendant Shenzhen I love Network Technology Co., Ltd. to the court, The defendant is ordered to eliminate the impact and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling $5 million.

After the trial, the Haidian Court of first instance I love network technology Co., Ltd. to eliminate the impact of the newspaper and compensation for economic losses of 2 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 50 million yuan.

Plaintiff Baidu company lawsuit says, plaintiff invests huge cost every year, operate Baidu search engine. The defendant is the main operator of the website “I Love Advertising Task Network” (hereinafter referred to as “I love Network”). By setting up an advertising task publishing platform, the defendant helps induce website users to set and click search tasks, and takes advantage of the objective situation that user click behavior accounts for a certain proportion of baidu search sorting algorithm to help users create false click data and disrupt the original objective sorting results.

Baidu said the defendants’ actions hurt consumers by pushing unscrupulous websites higher up in search results. In the act of unfair competition, the defendant seeks improper benefits by taking a cut from the user’s recharge of gold coins and monetizing the flow. The defendant’s conduct disturbed the competition order and constituted unfair competition.

The court thinks via hearing, “I love the net” undertook the operation of fixed type directly for Baidu search engine. The defendant, knowing the plaintiff’s search rules, guided the user to conduct the operation service in accordance with the plaintiff’s search rules. “I love net” have a clear “task” set guidelines and “mission” guidance, not only help “task” the user to complete the task set, also help “task” users make it mission to get the corresponding reward, eventually help “task” users through to the target site brush hits enhance the purpose of ranking in the search engine results.

The defendant also set VIP mode and “bidding mode” to expand the scale of brushing, so that the defendant can obtain higher economic benefits. The means of the accused behavior is to help and guide the traffic demander to issue demand tasks, and to induce the users of “receiving tasks” to complete the brushing tasks disguised as normal users by using “profit” as bait. Its purpose is to meet the brushing demands of the users of “sending tasks”, interfere with the search engine algorithm, and improve the search ranking. The essence of its behavior is to operate a trading platform that artificially creates false clicks for search engines, and the alleged behavior is unfair.

Court also said that baidu inc., click on the search engine results through the analysis of the algorithm of data, if not true based access data, company will make the wrong judging algorithm, the distance between users and demand site increases, eventually leading to its loss in the search engine web services in the industry a competitive advantage. “I love net” business model will generate invalid traffic, can not truly reflect the users and the demand of the market, thus users spend more time cost search site to their needs, or based on false click data errors in judgment, then make baidu company loss of users of the trust, reduce its competitive advantage.

In the end, the court made the above judgment considering the obvious subjective intention of the defendant, the great influence of the alleged unfair competition behavior, and the defendant’s failure to truthfully provide evidence in this case. (after)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll Up