Fraud? If a user wants to automate his browser to click all ads encountered as he surfs, that's fraud?
But the advertising company is supposed to well-qualify their targets, right? It's on them for serving and charging for advertisements to people who don't want them or will 'click them' regardless of content.
"A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."
Now, if the advertiser knows that people are clicking things through a script, and has some clause with their agreement with the company that says 'We won't charge you when this happens' but charges them anyway, that would be deceit. But it'd be on the part of the advertiser to the company buying the advertisements.
You don't think so? Isn't the whole point of this extension to try and trick advertisers into paying for non-existent user engagement?
It's up to the advertiser to accurately classify user behaviour, and the user has no responsibility to make that easy for them.
Am I stealing money from advertisers?
There is no such rule for online adverts. So what is a parent to do?
By blocking them and obfuscating through clicking I am protecting my own sanity, and that of my children. This is my "No/No" sticker.
Wow, that's actually kind of amazing. I wish we had that in the US...
It is generally understood and indeed reasonable to assume that in order for most users to click an ad they must first see it. This extension intentionally violates that in order to deceive that same advertiser.
Sending automated clicks to ads arguably meets all the elements of common-law fraud:
(1) A false representation of fact (that the user clicked on the ad);
(2) Knowledge of the falsity (by the user installing and using the extension);
(3) Intent to deceive the party by making the false representation (that is the extension's stated purpose!);
(4) Reasonable reliance by the innocent party (by believing the "click" was real and intended);
(5) Actual loss suffered (by paying the owner/operator of the page containing the ad)
In my view, therefore, "fraud" is an applicable term.
(Not saying that I do that, of course. Entirely hypothetical.)
"A party does not have a right to rely on a representation if she is aware the representation is false, not enforceable, or not made to her."
It's clearly arguable that the ad network knows that a browser is able to click on an ad in an automated fashion. Thus, they do not have a right to rely on that representation, as it is not enforceable.
[0] - http://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/legal-articles/common-law-...
This would be like if you are a dairy farmer and you notice people who buy cookies usually buy milk, so to make things simple you make an agreement to pay a store 25 cents for every cookie they sell (because you want to incentivize them to sell more cookies and therefore more milk). You couldn't then accuse a customer of fraud when they buy cookies but not milk. They never agreed to always buy milk when they buy cookies, that was just an assumption you made.
Whatever the merits of that argument might be in the general case, using an extension which expressly advertises its function to include falsifying clicks to mislead ad networks makes it hard to make the argument in that context.
I think you are deceiving everyone that you are indeed an attorney.