Maltese browser game biz flings €1m sueball at Google over Adsense kerfuffle

Claims to have made nearly €800k from ad clicks

A Maltese "browser-based gaming" company that claimed to have made nearly €800,000 from ad clicks in one month is suing Google after the ad tech monolith kicked it out of the Adsense program.

The Mountain View, California-based business alleged in court filings seen by The Register that Maltese outfit Kiwix merely pulled games from a third party website inside an iframe while surrounding them with ads served by Google Adsense.

Google also claimed that Kiwix deliberately tried to evade manual reviews by Ireland-based Google staffers through geographical IP address checks.

Kiwix Ltd filed suit against Google in London's High Court after the American ad tech company, which also runs a search engine, abruptly halted Kiwix's Adsense services after just five weeks on the platform.

According to court filings, Kiwix signed up for Google Adsense for Content, which is Google's let-us-embed-ads-into-your-webpage product. After being accepted into it in May 2017, Kiwix duly added Adsense to three of its websites, named as zoxy[dot]club, zoxy[dot]space and zoxy[dot]fun.

This, so Kiwix argues, was a profitable exercise for all concerned, stating that "on 16 June 2017 Google reported via its AdSense Management API that Kiwix was entitled to the payment by Google of a balance of €793,789.65."

Google disagreed, disabling Kiwix's account within days and refusing to hand over any of the money. The Maltese firm thus claims that Google has breached their contract, as well as failing to state "that it has terminated the account". Kiwix wants the ad tech company to hand over the €794k, as well as €230k for a brief suspension of the account for five days in May (consisting of allegedly lost revenues) before the permanent ban came into force in June 2017. The total claim is for just over £900,000, or €1m.

Naturally, Google's defence to the High Court claim differs considerably from Kiwix's version of events.

Alleging that Kiwix "does not itself host games on its websites" and instead pulled them via iframes from, Google alleges that Kiwix's practices were "invalid" under the Adsense terms and conditions. Critically, under its Ts&Cs, Google states that it alone determines what is and is not valid.

"Google's determination of non-compliance was principally based on the fact that Kiwix's websites featured what purported to be a loading bar for games," said Google in court filings, continuing: "In fact, Kiwix's loading bar was pre-programmed to take 10 seconds to fill, regardless of whatever time it might in fact take for the game to load… Google determined that Kiwix's loading bar was deceptive to users of the website and was not in compliance with the Adsense program policies."

Not only that but Google also alleges that Kiwix deliberately tried to evade manual reviews by Ireland-based Google staffers. An IP address check resulted in all users with non-Irish IPs who clicked on a Kiwix game being sent to an "intermediate webpage which displayed advertising and a description of the game". If you had an Irish IP address, however, you went straight to the game without the extra page of ads beforehand, according to Google.

"In view of Kiwix's non-compliance with the Adsense program policies, the amounts which had previously been reported against the account arose from invalid activity and should be refunded or credited to the advertisers," said Google in its court filings.

The ad tech monolith said it has not breached any contract, either by freezing Kiwix's Adsense account or by refunding advertisers instead of passing the revenues on.

The case, before the Chancery Division of the High Court, continues. ®

Similar topics

Broader topics

Other stories you might like

  • Venezuelan cardiologist charged with designing and selling ransomware
    If his surgery was as bad as his opsec, this chap has caused a lot of trouble

    The US Attorney’s Office has charged a 55-year-old cardiologist with creating and selling ransomware and profiting from revenue-share agreements with criminals who deployed his product.

    A complaint [PDF] filed on May 16th in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleges that Moises Luis Zagala Gonzalez – aka “Nosophoros,” “Aesculapius” and “Nebuchadnezzar” – created a ransomware builder known as “Thanos”, and ransomware named “Jigsaw v. 2”.

    The self-taught coder and qualified cardiologist advertised the ransomware in dark corners of the web, then licensed it ransomware to crooks for either $500 or $800 a month. He also ran an affiliate network that offered the chance to run Thanos to build custom ransomware, in return for a share of profits.

    Continue reading
  • China reveals its top five sources of online fraud
    'Brushing' tops the list, as quantity of forbidden content continue to rise

    China’s Ministry of Public Security has revealed the five most prevalent types of fraud perpetrated online or by phone.

    The e-commerce scam known as “brushing” topped the list and accounted for around a third of all internet fraud activity in China. Brushing sees victims lured into making payment for goods that may not be delivered, or are only delivered after buyers are asked to perform several other online tasks that may include downloading dodgy apps and/or establishing e-commerce profiles. Victims can find themselves being asked to pay more than the original price for goods, or denied promised rebates.

    Brushing has also seen e-commerce providers send victims small items they never ordered, using profiles victims did not create or control. Dodgy vendors use that tactic to then write themselves glowing product reviews that increase their visibility on marketplace platforms.

    Continue reading
  • Oracle really does owe HPE $3b after Supreme Court snub
    Appeal petition as doomed as the Itanic chips at the heart of decade-long drama

    The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Oracle's appeal to overturn a ruling ordering the IT giant to pay $3 billion in damages for violating a decades-old contract agreement.

    In June 2011, back when HPE had not yet split from HP, the biz sued Oracle for refusing to add Itanium support to its database software. HP alleged Big Red had violated a contract agreement by not doing so, though Oracle claimed it explicitly refused requests to support Intel's Itanium processors at the time.

    A lengthy legal battle ensued. Oracle was ordered to cough up $3 billion in damages in a jury trial, and appealed the decision all the way to the highest judges in America. Now, the Supreme Court has declined its petition.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022