I'd be interested in seeing you point to statute which would define the actions described as fraud.
And how, exactly, would actions such as those described, be in any way connected with Google's "terms of service"; assuming that such exist?
If it were, somehow, it would not be Quixtar but Google who would create the search engine results.
If they don't like what Quixtar is doing, they should change their software.
ob googlewhack: billabong microstepping
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Google's claim would be they were fraudulently induced to create false results. It would be something akin to postal fraud (but not with the same legal ramifications): To commit 'postal fraud' one does not need to physically put a fraudulent item in the mail; inducing someone else to do so is likewise fraud _on your part_. So you induced Google, in this instance, to draw up and present false or fraudulent search results. Their scheme for doing so was always working pretty well, but then you screwed it up. And to ask them to change their software is a lot like saying when someone gets a credit card through fraudulent circumstances, the credit card company deposits the plastic and the monthly bills in the U.S. Mail, so you say if they don't like the fraud, then let them change the way they dispense cards.Yeah, Google does periodically refine its software, just as the credit card people periodically refine their techniques for processing applications. But now and then, someone slips past either of them. But the law is intended to protect the weakest party, is it not? And in this instance, Google got defrauded, just as the credit card people get defrauded sometimes. And who gets punished? Not the credit card people nor Google, as long as they were following their 'normal' procedures. PAT]