Because Google's own ads aren't spammy... I don't really understand what WSJ is trying to say. Honestly every one of their articles about Google sounds like a unsubstantiated hit job.

It's pretty simple:

1. Do you agree with the definition of "spammy ads" defined by the coalition? If not, then what about it would you change? Is anything about it "unfair"?

2. Do you see any Google ad that breaks the rules and isn't filtered? Do you think a non-Google ad that doesn't break the rule and is filtered? If so, point me to it.

So many people claim that Google "owns" the coalition. Why does it even matter if you can't find any issue in the standard they've come up with?

If you agree with the standard, and the standard is properly enforced, then what is the problem?