UK financial watchdog dithers over £680k refund from Google (in ad credits, mind you) for running anti-fraud ads

The UK's financial regulator is refusing to say whether it will accept an offer by Google to pay back more than £600,000 spent on online ads warning people about the dangers of money scams. News that Google made the offer came to light earlier this week during oral evidence [PDF] to the Treasury Committee hearing on economic …

[Dinanziame]

Is Google blamed for the existence of online scams?

Sounds like they're saying Google is already profiting somehow from the existence of online scams, so they shouldn't receive yet more money for running ads fighting the problem. Or maybe they're saying Google's so rich that they should run the ads for free as a public service.

[Richard 12]

Re: Is Google blamed for the existence of online scams?

Google is profiting from online scams, as are Twitter, Facebook and Apple.

A day surfing with the adblocker turned off will no doubt prove it to you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Is Google blamed for the existence of online scams?

You mean because online scams use ads, like everybody else on the internet? When bandits rob a bank, they use a getaway car; but we don't accuse Ford of profiting from bank robberies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Is Google blamed for the existence of online scams?

I WOULD accuse Ford of profiting from bank robberies, if those bank robberies were mainly Ford-driven, and on a massive, regular scale. The same I would accuse weapons manufacturers of profiting from all those 'localized' conflicts where the 'defensive' weaponry is used by all sides.

[Dinanziame]

Re: Is Google blamed for the existence of online scams?

Good point! Gun manufacturers obviously profit from crime, since criminals buy guns. Maybe the government should stop giving money to gun manufacturers as well?

(I'm sure a massive amount of US criminals drink Budweiser, too...)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Is Google blamed for the existence of online scams?

Non sequitur.

Most of the scams they run are obvious. UK TV would never get away with running them.

Your analogy would work if we blamed the internet for online scams. We don't, we blame the company that broadcasts and profits off them.

[steviebuk]

Re: Is Google blamed for the existence of online scams?

Not the same. YouTube for example has quite a lot of clearly fraud ads and other "questionable" ads the "Free seminar" ones. Yet YouTube blame this on AdSense yet they own AdSense. And the starscope monocular is clearly a fucking scam yet has continued to stay on their platform for months and months. I assume while the scammers give them a cut, they appear to not give a shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Is Google blamed for the existence of online scams?

Yep, don't forget the torch "the army wants to ban"(!) - it's actually a good torch, I bought one with recharchable batteries and charger for a fiver.. A bit less than the £50 on YouTube.

Also, the "internet speed booster your ISP doesn't want you to know about", which is just a wifi repeater.

Oh, and the effectively useless power factor correcter that electricity companies want to ban because it will reduce your electricity bills by 90%.

All obvious (to us) scams, but given an air of authenticity because they are shown on YouTube , "not some scam site"

All these ads are from the same company (at least, the creator of the advert is the same) - yet they are still going strong.

I tell friends and family to assume all YouTube ads are scams. I've also started telling legitimate advertisers I'm doing this, and why.

"Every little helps"

[Martin an gof]

Re: Is Google blamed for the existence of online scams?

You're missing something.

In the UK, "traditional" media is required to do some level of due diligence before accepting advertising. An obviously misleading advert is just as likely to bring problems for the agency, publisher or broadcaster as it is to the company placing the advert. Why should Google (or any of the other ad-funded modern media) be able to avoid those responsibilities?

So, to take the Ford analogy, it is more as if the robbers went to the Ford garage on their way to the bank. They have balaclavas and large sacks with "SWAG" printed on the side. They tell the salesman they need a fast car and will be able to pay in cash in half an hour. Wouldn't you expect that at the very least the salesman will ring the police as soon as they've driven off? That, if he's being very public-spirited, he "takes some details", makes a phonecall, and stalls until plod arrives?

Bank doesn't get robbed, robbers get done for "going equipped", garage gets positive coverage in the local media and just possibly, more people through the door over the next few weeks.

M.

[Zippy´s Sausage Factory]

Re: Is Google blamed for the existence of online scams?

Ford don't profit from the bank robberies. I mean, the car's usually stolen in the first place...

[W.S.Gosset]

Eh?

This seems to be a strange jumbling of concepts/domains.

The FCA has no authority or responsibility to regulate advertising. It does Finance. (And rather well, in my experience.) So advertising in a known cesspool to alert/warn/train ignorami about risk of financial fraud via ads just like what they're looking at, is in fact an excellent tactic.

The Advertising Standards Authority is the one who should be cleaning up that cesspool. AND the only one who has the authority, resources, responsibility, purpose, and funding to do so.

I am at a loss as to why the FCA is suddenly being expected to take over the tasks and responsibilities and authorities of any other random regulator it goes near.

[katrinab]

Re: Eh?

The FCA has the authority to regulate all aspects of the financial services sector, including advertising.

If someone is soliciting money for investments, that is very much within the jurisdiction of the FCA, because they are required to registered with them and follow their rules.

Also, many of the "business opportunity" ads fall under the same rules as for example Deliveroo floating on the stock market and inviting people to buy their shares. Unlike Deliveroo, most of them don't have an audited prospectus that complies with FCA rules.

[W.S.Gosset]

Re: Eh?

Good point. I'd overlooked that aspect of its retail stuff. Thanks for the correction.

(My FCA exposure is up-close but wholesale. Eg, my registration status allows completely unrestricted activity in any market, instrument, or strategy, but doesn't allow me to offer or even discuss specific investments unless the client has at least US$10m to invest.)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Eh?

"It does Finance. (And rather well, in my experience.)"

Go on, spill the beans, what wonders have the FCA done for you.

The whole complaint system, based on each sad individual having to wait 8 weeks, complaining about the same issue (regular system failures/compromised systems, think 1000's of customers all having the same issue - TSB is a case in point) is "one big fucking merry-go-round to nothinig" (that should be their tag line), with the only winners being the Financial Ombudsman that get paid 20x (speaking figuratively) the amount paid per case, than any paultry sum paid in compensation.

Even the Financial Ombudsman online application form is designed to break your resolve, the final part of the form includes a box "Add files", if you actually drop a PDF on the words "Add Files", Firefox will open that PDF in the same tab as your part filled application (roughtly at the 2 hour point of filling out that form) and erase everything and no, you can't use the back button.

Try it, if you don't believe me, (jump to that bit of the form, the last part of the form).

The person complaining does all the work, compromises their privacy in the process and gets paid an amount that wouldn't even amount to minimum wage for the effort. Why is it mandatory to give your DOB to make a complaint about a financial org, if it isn't all about mining your data as a by-product of the person making the complaint.

In a word, they are fucking useless organisation, from my experience. If they had any teeth I (along with all the others) wouldn't struggle to find a free working cash machine, in a town that until last year had 4 banks and now has none, and it's by no means a poor town.

[TimMaher]

Fundamentally Complicit Authority

Private Eye.

In The City section by ‘Slicker’

It teaches you all you need to know.

Have a thumb up. If that’s not too uncomfortable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Eh?

The regulator does not work for you. They work for the banks, to give the banks plausible protection against stringent financial rules which make them liable for your misdeeds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Conduct_Authority

"The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is a financial regulatory body in the United Kingdom, but operates independently of the UK Government, and is financed by charging fees to members of the financial services industry"

It's endemic across Europe.

I'll give you an example, I rented a motorhome, with the deposit paid on credit card in Holland. The returned deposit is sent via IBAN as an across-border transfer at the end of the rental (it's in the rental contract), my bank rejected the inbound transfer with 'unknown origin of funds'. I have no way of receiving that deposit.

The regulator that would force the bank to compensate me, is the same regulator that would 'fine' the bank, a token sum, for accepting money of unknown origin.

Typically you would have to agree to arbitration to use these fake regulatory authorities, losing your right to sue.

The OECD really screwed up Europe. These fake regulatory authorities are just a symptom of that. Banks are supposed to inject themselves into the minutia of every transaction, or be liable, and they cannot, so they create fake regulatory authorities to give themselves fake confirmation of compliance.

You cannot ensure a transaction will go through, that you can have your own money, or that anything will happen in a professional manner. Sadly that's Europe wide.

[W.S.Gosset]

Re: Eh?

This is a failure at the rental company end.

You need to get them to send it correctly. Or take advantage of having used a credit card: demand the _credit card_ company compensate you immediately (most have a policy of doing so) and

then they can take up sorting out the doco themselves (which they have the resources and insider knowledge to make relatively easy for them), with the useful motivation of getting their money back.

[katrinab]

Re: Eh?

Yes, surely they should refund the deposit back to the card it was paid from? Usually it is just a case of going into their merchant account and pressing the refund button next to the transaction.

[MalIlluminated]

Once you have their money... you never give it back.

Of course Google is only offering credits. When you're up against the FCA, ignoring the 1st Rule of Acquisition would be suicidal.

[Kane]

Re: Once you have their money... you never give it back.

"Of course Google is only offering credits. When you're up against the FCA, ignoring the 1st Rule of Acquisition would be suicidal."

As would be rules 10 and 16.

Mines the one with a copy of the Rules of Acquisition in the pocket, cheapest binding possible.

[IGotOut]

Ahh the good old read between the lines"

"Protecting consumers and legitimate businesses operating in the financial sector is a priority for us."

"Everyone else can go f**k themselves, we get the money, so we don't give a shit"