- Journal Archives
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
You hope to get the latest scoop on the Obama campaign, so you quickly pull up Google and search for “Barack Obama.” Surprisingly, Romney ads pop up. Are you confused? Most likely, not so much. I would hope that any moderately informed citizen could effortlessly differentiate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Nevertheless, critics have argued that this type of “brand hijacking” can breed confusion for voters hoping to attain information about one candidate and being shown ads for the other.
This year, the candidates started purchasing ads that would appear when people searched for their competitor, a method that companies have been using for years. Advertisers usually pay for their message to appear as an ad along with the results of a search for a competing brand. As long as this type of advertising does not cause consumer confusion, it shouldn’t be an issue. In this case, however, it is no longer a company trying to one-up its competitor; much more is expected from the presidential candidates. Apparently, consumers have viewed this tactic as a nasty way of doing business and held it against the candidates.
Despite its criticism, this approach was adopted to help the candidates raise awareness among web users. According to Rebecca Tushnet, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, “If people aren’t confused, the fact that they might think differently about Obama after seeing Romney’s ads — it isn’t harm, it’s just the market working.” As previously mentioned, most users would not be confused as to what the ads are promoting, so this approach would likely not violate trademark law and not be harmful to the “consumers.”
Providing users with options should not condemned. In fact, as a public policy matter, it is critical for users to be provided with a wide array of information before making important decisions that could affect us all, such as who will become the next president of the United States. After all, this decision differs greatly from consumers deciding on what their next car will be. Thus, while consumers might be fed up with Toyota ads popping up when they merely wanted information about their new Honda, perhaps they shouldn’t immediately write-off useful information about their favorite candidate’s opponent.
Recent Blog Posts
- Is Streaming Speech?
- Does Tweaking Your Car’s Software Constitute Fair Use?
- Controlling the Uncontrollable: UK Taking the Driver’s Seat in Driverless Car Technology
- Obama’s Cybersecurity Executive Order: Private Sector Must Help Police the “Wild West”
- Qualcomm Settlement May Reconfigure the Smartphone Market in China
- Who Rightfully Owns the Village People’s YMCA?
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution