As reported on a few sources over the past two days, search engine Google (www.google.com) sued a company known as Pacific WebWorks this week, a Web hosting company that counts among its services.
Pacific WebWorks Online ads promising customers they can make money with work at home equipment that cost $ 2 or $ 3 “immediate access fee,” but according to the demand for Google, could face monthly fees of about $ 80 until it is decided not to.
Google’s specific complaint is that the company is abusing Google’s name and trademarks in an effort to provide their own products of legitimacy, and as a result is having a negative impact on the Google brand. An often cited example, taken from demand for Google, is the announcement by the Pacific for a new “Google adworker program,” which obviously sounds very close to Google’s AdWords service. The announcement of the Pacific reported promises to help anyone “make a living working at home.”
According to the lawsuit, filed in Utah, the company regularly changes Internet addresses in order to help avoid detection, but repeatedly used the same blog posts and ad text.
Several reports have mentioned the company settled a case with the Utah Division of Consumer Protection in 2007, after the state accused the company of making unauthorized charges to customers and another lawsuit is pending against the company Illinois.
In the reports of the PC World article that according to recent company filings with the SEC, Pacific earned $ 21.4 million in gross profit in the first nine months of 2009, for a range of services it describes as “Visual WebTools , “used to design and maintain websites.
Google says that violates other brand names the company has used its money to ensure that systems are “Google Payday Kit” and “Google Marketing Kit” and many others.
The products, as described by demand for Google, described by more than a few sources online as “scams” seem to be modern update of the old Don Lapre “make money by placing small ads” infomercials of the 1990s ( There is some more about that on Wikipedia).
If the actual product being promised by the company is a “scam” or if it’s illegal, it seems that question, although many reports seem to be using the words “client” and “victim” interchangeably.
The PC World article, which devotes much of his time reviewing the finances of the company, cites malware researcher Chris Boyd, who points to several tactics used by the Pacific and companies like this would consider misleading or “unpleasant”.
PC World, and several other sources, Pacific WebWorks has said he refused to comment on the lawsuit.
For a company that might be trying to fly under the radar in some respects, of being sued by one of the largest companies in the world probably means more than inconvenient for boost public image, however.
