Click Fraud Prosecutions In Usa
1. United States v. Vasquez et al. (2007) — Early Click Fraud Ring
Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Facts:
A group of individuals in San Diego created software bots to repeatedly click on competitor ads in Google AdWords campaigns. Their goal was to generate revenue from their own ad network while draining competitors’ budgets.
Legal Issue:
Whether artificially clicking ads constituted wire fraud and computer fraud under federal law.
Court’s Decision:
The court found that systematically generating fraudulent clicks to profit violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and wire fraud statutes.
Outcome:
Several defendants pleaded guilty; fines exceeded $500,000, and the perpetrators received prison sentences ranging from 18 to 36 months.
Significance:
This was one of the earliest cases treating click fraud as a serious criminal offense rather than just a civil dispute.
2. United States v. Kolonko (2010) — Automated Click Fraud
Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Facts:
Defendant Kolonko ran a company that installed click bots on client websites, which artificially clicked ads without user knowledge. The scheme generated $1.2 million in fraudulent advertising revenue.
Legal Issue:
The court examined whether automated clicks without human consent constitute intentional fraud.
Court’s Decision:
Yes — the court ruled that using software to manipulate ad revenue constituted wire fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.
Outcome:
Kolonko was sentenced to 4 years in federal prison, and all proceeds were forfeited.
Significance:
This case reinforced that automated click schemes can be criminally prosecuted, not just addressed in civil litigation.
3. SEC v. Traffic Monsoon Click Ring (2016)
Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Facts:
Traffic Monsoon, an advertising platform, promoted a “pay-to-click” model where users clicked ads to earn commissions. In reality, the system was rigged to generate revenue for operators, and much of the click traffic was fake.
Legal Issue:
Whether manipulating PPC systems violated securities and fraud laws.
Court’s Decision:
The SEC classified the scheme as a Ponzi-style advertising fraud, since returns were generated from new participants rather than legitimate ad engagement.
Outcome:
Operators were barred from online businesses and ordered to pay millions in restitution.
Significance:
Highlighted the overlap of click fraud and investment fraud, especially in schemes with promised payouts.
4. United States v. Hutson (2013) — Click Fraud via Malware
Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Facts:
Defendant Hutson distributed malware that secretly ran in the background of infected computers, clicking on Google and Bing ads without the user’s knowledge.
Legal Issue:
Whether secretly using other people’s computers for ad clicks constituted criminal fraud.
Court’s Decision:
The court held that malware-driven clicks qualify as wire fraud and a violation of the CFAA.
Outcome:
Hutson was sentenced to 5 years in prison, and millions of dollars in proceeds were seized.
Significance:
Set a precedent that malware-assisted click fraud is a serious federal crime.
5. United States v. Deegan et al. (2015) — International Click Fraud Network
Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Facts:
A network of U.S. and Eastern European operators created thousands of fake websites to click on Google and Yahoo ads. Payments were laundered through multiple bank accounts.
Legal Issue:
Whether operating an international network to generate fraudulent clicks violated U.S. law.
Court’s Decision:
Yes — defendants were prosecuted for wire fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering, with evidence showing coordinated intent to defraud advertisers.
Outcome:
Several arrests in the U.S. and abroad; prison terms ranged from 3–6 years, plus asset forfeitures.
Significance:
Demonstrated that cross-border click fraud operations are within the reach of U.S. federal prosecutors.
6. Google AdSense Civil Enforcement Cases (Multiple 2006–2018)
Court: Various U.S. District Courts
Facts:
Google frequently pursued civil actions against individuals and companies using click bots, incentivized clicks, or automated traffic to inflate AdSense revenue.
Legal Issue:
Violations of contract terms, fraud, and computer misuse.
Outcome:
Courts consistently ruled in Google’s favor, ordering defendants to forfeit all ad revenues and banning them from Google programs.
Significance:
Although mostly civil, these cases supported the criminal prosecutions by establishing clear patterns of intent and methods.
Key Legal Principles in Click Fraud Prosecutions
Intent Matters: Accidental or accidental repeated clicks are generally not criminal; deliberate manipulation is.
Use of Technology: Malware, bots, and automated scripts are often key elements proving criminal intent.
Federal Jurisdiction: Even cross-border schemes affecting U.S. advertisers fall under U.S. law.
Overlap with Money Laundering: Large-scale click fraud often involves hiding proceeds, bringing additional charges.
Click fraud prosecutions in the USA show a blend of cybercrime, fraud, and advertising law, with courts treating large-scale schemes as serious federal offenses.
RELATED Blog
0 comments