In a report published this past week, an assistant professor at HBS charged Google with taking advantage of individuals who mis-type the names of URLs.  Cybersquatters buy URLs betting that people will misspell the URL (typing “xpedia.com” vs. “expedia.com,” for example) and then they use Google Adsense on these misspelled URLs to make money.

Ben Edelman says that this is “one of the unsavory ways we all end up paying Google,”  and that while “users don’t have to write Google a check to receive Google’s services… one way or another, Google manages to get users’ money.”

Unsavory? Unsavory.  Compared to what… AIG spending $30,000 on spa treatments?  The Keating Five? 

Let’s take a look at this.

On its face, typo-squatting is not illegal.   The law is not very interested in those who register words that are similar to established URLs, unless the new site violates trademark law for the purpose of competing with the original trademark’s owner.  So if “Orbits.com” benefits from those who can’t spell “Orbitz” – but it’s in some entirely different business and is not trying to compete with or nefariously deceive those looking for “Orbitz.com” – then more power to ‘em.

Banking, for obvious reasons, attracts evil-doers but, again, one needs to consider each circumstance individually.  It is legal to buy and use a URL such as www.bankofdamerica.com (which was hardly a site at all – just a cascade of links, per the above graphic), which was most definitely not trying to compete with Bank of America or lead BofA customers astray.  It had a sponsored link to www.bankofamerica.com and other ads served by Google Adsense for which the deep-thinking bankofdameria crowd was paid.  It was, on the other hand, ruled illegal to purchase mortgagewellsfargo.com for the purpose of deliberately misleading users interested in Wells Fargo services. 

I guess what I’m saying is that if a website is deliberately trying to rip me off, then I care.  But do I care if an individual makes money from Google Adsense when I go to wakeupwalmart.com (free speech) or, conversely, wallmartsucks.com?  Not really.  And do I believe that Google has some liability here or, worse, is acting in an unsavory manner?  Not so much.

I know this may surprise some of my gentle readers, and I am hardly letting Google off the hook for instances of trademark infringement for which the company has been seen as liable.  I just think that Edelman, a professor who issued an academic report in the McAfee Security Journal – not exactly a newsstand favorite – managed to use this mysterious “typo-squatting” term to get a lot of undue attention this week with an over-the-top exclamation about Google.