Amazon Accused In Birkenstock Misspelling Advert Row

German sandal maker Birkenstock has successfully brought an injunction against Amazon to prevent internet shoppers from being directed to the online marketplace with anything other than the correct spelling of the sandal brand name.

Why?

The reported motivation for the legal move by Birkenstock is to prevent unsuspecting shoppers from buying low-quality counterfeits through Amazon that would erode Birkenstock’s reputation.

The sandal company argued in a district court in Dusseldorf that Amazon booked variations of “Birkenstock” as keywords through Google AdWords, thereby potentially contributing to customers ending up with counterfeit versions of the sandals as a result of typing e.g. “Brikenstock”, “Birkenstok”, “Bierkenstock” or other variations into their Google searches for the product.

Ongoing

This move by Birkenstock appears to be part of an ongoing dispute with Amazon. A year ago, Birkenstock stopped dealing with Amazon in the United States, and has now said that it will end the sale of its products through Amazon in Europe after Amazon “failed to proactively prevent” the sale of counterfeit Birkenstock goods.

Misspelling Adverts Commonplace

One interesting aspect of this case is the fact that if the court’s final ruling (it’s still at a preliminary stage) goes in favour of the Birkenstock, this could have implications for all companies using the common practice of targeting PPC adverts at misspellings of brand / product names.

For example, in one widely publicised example from back in April 2013, confectionary brand Snickers based an online advertising campaign around misspellings of its brand name. The company worked with a London agency to build a list of the top 500 search terms, and by using an algorithm were able to generate a list of 25,381 different misspellings. The three-day campaign generated 558,589 ad impressions on those misspellings, and served as an example for what has now become a very widely used PPC tactic.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

This case raises some interesting issues for online business advertising. Obviously, businesses would like to protect themselves from the actions of counterfeiters and those trying to circumvent trademark law and pass off fake goods as popular brands. In this case, however, some commentators have pointed out that Amazon’s role does not appear to be a parallel form of digital deception, and that the mainstream practice of targeting ads to misspelled search terms can actually help shoppers find what they’re looking for more easily.

Also, some commentators have made the point that counterfeit products sold on Amazon are unlikely to be using misspellings in their online or physical branding, but are more likely to simply be superficially exact copies that are listed as the real thing in Amazon’s network of third-party sellers. If, in this scenario, Amazon used misspellings to advertise Birkenstocks to shoppers, and those shoppers bought counterfeit products as a result, the problem is would be more likely to be Amazon’s supply-chain structure than its search tactics.

If the German court’s final ruling goes in favour of Birkenstock, it could have much wider effects for online advertisers, and may not be to the benefit of web users.

Extremism Tax

UK Minister of State for Security, Ben Wallace, has said that Britain may impose new taxes on tech giants like Google and Facebook unless they do more to combat online extremism by taking down any material aimed at radicalizing people or helping them to prepare terror attacks.

Lack Of Co-operation

In an interview with the Sunday Times, Security Secretary Wallace is reported as saying that tech giants appear to have been “less than co-operative”, and are placing too much of the responsibility and cost for tackling extremist material and influence on the UK government (i.e. the taxpayer).

Mr Wallace is reported as saying that although the tech firms appear to be happy to sell people’s data, they seem less happy to give that data to the UK government, thereby forcing it to spend large amounts of money on de-radicalisation programs, surveillance and other counter-terrorism measures.

Tax Threat

Mr Wallace is reported as saying in his interview with the Sunday Times that the government was prepared to look at things like tax as a way of incentivising or compensating the tech giants for their “inaction”.

Vulnerable

Mr Wallace made the point that the UK is “more vulnerable than at any point in the last 100 years.” He highlighted how social media and encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp may be making things easier for attackers, and how taking down online extremist more quickly than is currently happening could save the millions of pounds that are being spent on de-radicalising people (who have been radicalised) rather than preventing radicalisation in the first place.

Echoes of Amber Rudd

Mr Wallace’s reported comments appear to echo many of those of interior minister Amber Rudd, who, just weeks after the second bridge attack, headed a very public campaign to stop the complete end-to-end encryption model used by some social media platforms, and allow ‘back doors’ to be built-in to such systems to allow the government to access them in the name of intercepting communications by extremists / terrorists. Critics have pointed out that a building in back doors would make the platforms vulnerable to hackers.

Stereotyping

Mr Wallace’s reported comments also included a description of tech company staff that appeared to stereotype them as people who “sit on beanbags in T-shirts”. He was quick to create a contrast between this more passive perceived public image, and his perceived reality that the tech giants are in fact “ruthless profiteers” who will “sell our details to loans and soft-porn companies”.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

This appears to be another effort by the government to put pressure on the tech giants through negative publicity, and this time through threats of new taxation, to highlight what the government sees as their responsibility in playing a role in reducing the terror threat from extremists. Businesses and individuals are obviously likely to be unanimous in their wish for increased national security, the reduction of a terror threat, and in closing avenues which lead to radicalisation and recruitment for extremist / terror activities.

There are, however, other influences and points of view at play here, including the powerful commercial interests and profits of the ‘tech giants’, the need to be seen to resist any forms of censorship and outside interference, and the need to be seen to protect users’ privacy and trust, diplomatic and trade interests and relationships e.g. with the U.S where the tech giants are mainly based, personal data and security implications (with stopping end-to-end encryption), and the influence of freedom and rights campaigners.

The comments of Mr Wallace are likely to be followed by many more from the government in the near future as they attempt to exert some influence over many wealthy, overseas-based but very popular tech companies that play such an important part in the daily lives of many UK citizens.

Justice Too Slow With Data Requests Says ICO

The UK’s Secretary of State for Justice has been hit with an Enforcement notice by the Information Commissioner’s Office over backlogs and poor handling of requests for personal records made under data protection laws.

Subject Access Requests

In the UK, under the Data Protection Act 1998, anyone can make a request to any organisation (termed the ‘data controllers’) for copies of both paper and computer records and related information that the organisation is holding, using, or sharing about them. This is known as a ‘subject access request’ (SAR), and organisations usually charge a fee for providing the information e.g. up to £10 in normal circumstances. Under the DPA, organisations are required to answer data access requests within 40 days

The Backlog

The issuing of the Enforcement Notice by the ICO to the UK Ministry of Justice (technically the ‘data controllers in this case) on 21st December 2017 relates to the fact that ICO has received a large number requests for assessment by people whose subject access requests had not been dealt with quickly enough by the Ministry of Justice.

The Enforcement Notice highlighted the fact that there is a backlog of 919 SARs from individuals, some of which dated back to 2012.

Two Main Problems Highlighted

The two main problems highlighted by the Notice are that that the Justice Secretary (data controller) has contravened section 7 of the Data Protection Act for failing to act “without undue delay” and that the “data controller’s internal systems, procedures and policies for dealing with subject access requests made under the DPA were unlikely to achieve compliance with the provisions of the DPA”.

Plan To Clear Backlog

The ICO Enforcement Notice did, however, acknowledge that the Ministry of Justice has given the ICO a recovery plan which shows that it intends to clear the backlog by October 2018, and answer new requests without “undue delay” from January 2018.

According to the update and plan published in the Enforcement Notice, the Ministry of Justice believes that it has 793 requests that are over 40 days old, and that it planned to deal with 14 cases from 2O14 by 31 December 2017, 161 cases received from 2015 by 30 April 2018, 357 cases from 2016 by 31 August 2018, and 261 cases from 2O17 by 31 October 2018.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

This is an embarrassment for the Ministry of Justice, and may be an indication of a wider problem faced by many businesses and organisations in the UK that are still not getting to grips with their responsibilities under the current Data Protection Act, let alone getting prepared for the introduction of the UK’s Data Protection Bill, and the EU’s GDPR will come into force on 25th May 2018.

Under GDPR for example, businesses and organisations will have to deal with requests even more quickly, may have to provide additional information, and won’t be able to charge a fee for complying with requests. There will also be the challenges of responding to an individual’s ‘right to be forgotten’, and the prospect of much greater penalties greater penalties for non-compliance than under the current Data Protection Act.

This story is a reminder that all businesses and organisations should take the opportunity now to ensure that their data practices are in order and likely to be compliant with GDPR, and also to consider that being GDPR compliant could actually provide commercial advantages as this will become a serious factor for consideration in trading relationships and alliances.

Tech Tip – Battery Saver In Windows 10

If you need to squeeze the most out of the battery charge of your laptop or tablet, try the Battery Saver feature in Windows 10.

This feature disables unnecessary background functions such as live tile updates and email and calendar syncing. It can also auto-dim your screen brightness. Here’s how to access it:

  1. Go to the Action Centre
  2. Go to System > Settings > Battery
  3. Select ‘Battery Saver’
  4. Choose to automatically enable Battery saver mode or not.