[Throwaway823]

Slightly different, but I had a user attempt to get my AdSense account banned by repeatedly clicking ads for days. Sadly, for the advertisers, Google didn't do a thing. This user racked up close to 10,000 clicks, my earnings skyrocketed for a day or two, and I contacted Google with clear evidence pointing to a particular IP address, and explained the situation in-depth with server logs.

This was submitted through their form to contact them about click fraud, and I never heard back. Those advertisers paid for thousands of fake clicks, and I ended up with a decent chunk of change.

I can't understand how they missed it. My clicks are level for years, and then during a couple of days, they increase 50-100x normal levels. This should have been a huge red flag.

[elorant]

Best thing to do to avoid clickbombing is to write a script that will not allow multiple clicks from the same IP/cookie. Judging by the fact that the guy who clicked your ads didn’t even bother to change his IP chances are he wasn’t a hacker, just someone who holds a grange towards you and tried something utterly stupid to avenge you.

[Throwaway823]

It was a user with a grudge that was banned from the service. They attempted to use a number of online point and click tools to attack the site, until I eventually banned their IP address, and then talked with them and threatened legal action.

[logicallee]

This whole thread people discuss technical mitigations, and I'm thinking "man, this is such a clear case where a bit of law and the tiniest amount of civil damages totally would fix the situation, as long as the attacking person lives in a country with a level of rule of law." What a waste of resources trying to make something impossible, rather than just illegal. (I was thinking mostly of the anticompetitive acts and the title.)

Your comment actually shows a clear example, of how actually threatening legal action makes someone come to their senses, whereas any level of technical measures just gamified the situation.

This is just a case where we can collectively enter an arms race for technical solutions, or just use a bit of law and live in a sane society where this isn't on the competitive menu.

[tim333]

Trouble is a lot of attacks come from places like Russia where it is not convenient to travel to file a legal case.

[cbr]

    Those advertisers paid for thousands of fake clicks,
    and I ended up with a decent chunk of change.

I see how you know the second one, but how do you know the first? Maybe they have a grey area of fraud detection where they pay the publisher but don't charge the advertiser?

[rogerdpack]

And you actually got paid for those clicks? That is bizarre, I would have thought that google had some system to automatically detect the "click fraudsters" and not charge for their clicks...I mean how hard is it to stop counting clicks after somebody's done it 5 times or so from the same site? But I guess google is actually making money from those fraudsters [since they charge the advertisers] so...maybe that's why they don't care as much about fraud LOL.

[Throwaway823]

Yes, I was paid for them. I was expecting the numbers to be corrected in the weeks to follow, which occasionally happens during strange activity. However, it was nearly a year ago, nothing happened, and the money arrived in my account.

[iancarroll]

They care about fraud. That is a VERY rare case of an advertiser getting paid from fraud. I have been banned (intentionally) by their system and it is very clever at times.

Create a few accounts and see how far you get to $100.

[zapu]

How do you "create a few accounts"? I was under impression that once they ban you, it's over. Same person can't create more than one account. And can't create another one after a ban.

[iancarroll]

I've created at least three with the same name, haha.

[grey-area]

Because they have a monopoly on advertising it's not really in their interest any more to detect click fraud.

[spacemanmatt]

They do not hold a monopoly on advertising. They hold the majority of the business, for now, but the structure of how and why they have that business is not monopolistic.

Source: Dearth of legal action from competitors or DOJ. And make no mistake -- their competitors are litigious as fuck.

[grey-area]

Yes, it's a slippery term so probably not the best word to use, however the majority of display and search ads are served by google and unfortunately this does mean they have little incentive to actually address click fraud, though they do obviously make some efforts, we wouldn't hear stories like the parent post if those efforts were effective. Fraud was reported and went completely unaddressed - that's not really acceptable to my mind and indicates they feel little pressure to mitigate it as that's not an isolated report.

Re the absence of lawsuits, I'm not sure that is positive proof of anything.

[throwawayads]

AdSense keeps doing the most un-Googly, "evil" thing and getting away with it. - https://medium.com/@ad_insider/googles-latest-monopoly-trick...

They don't even realize how much they are hurting Google in that process.