| Whether or not they are using dynamic keyword insertion is irrelevant. Here is a comparison for consideration. I bid on "free credit report." The FTC isn't going to give a shit if I put "Free Credit Report" in my ad, or I bid on "free credit report" and used dynamic insertion. Its all the same thing, I now qualify for their draconian rule set for companies advertising to provide free credit reports. (By the way, do a search for "free credit report" on Google, notice anything special?) Citrix placed the name of a federally trademarked business in their ad copy. Additionally, that trademark is for a direct competitors of theirs (not a fruit seller with an ad for an "Apple.") Thirdly, the promised product, Meetingburner, is not actually there. Thus, they are guilty of both trademark infringement and deceptive advertising. At bare minimum, Meetingburner would send a C&D. At best they could demand a six figure settlement and a guarantee they will never bid on "Meetingburner" or run ads with "Meetingburner" in them again (killed two birds with one stone, since Citrix legally could bid on the term.) In the extreme they could refuse a settlement and take it to trial, and probably win. After legal expenses, likely a loss for both sides. I've been on the receiving end of this before. I learned not to use dynamic insertion. As for Adwords -- "Unfortunately, reaching out to the AdWords team at Google isn’t an easy task. This does appear to be against the Terms of Service for AdWords, but since its so close to the weekend, the ads might stay up for the next few days." -- Yeah, good luck with that. They let big advertisers do basically whatever the hell they want. I've watched very explicit rule violations slide for well in excess of a year. |