@Fabien Bello 222536 wrote:
Thanks Dominic but I still dont believe that operators should nor indeed have a legal right to give you a list of all the words they wish affiliates to add as negative keywords.
I fully agree and appreciate that the trademark needs to be respected if included in their T&Cs but I know that demanding that generic terms be added on the negative list simply because they form part of their names would not stand a leg in court as not part of their coprights or trademark.
Furthermore, bidding on a keyword such as “casino”, “bingo” and “poker” set as broad or phrase is not a breach of contract since you are effectively not bidding on terms indicated in the t&Cs.
Thats my point. If an affiliate is not using any of the brand terms but simply bidding on the obvious keywords set as broad and phrases, Google will pick anything to go with those keywords but the affiliate is not in breach since none of the brands terms are being used.
Surely thats an issue which should be raised with Google, but the affiliates is fully legitimate as far as the legal bound with the T&Cs is conerned.
They can’t (or it would be very difficult) legally prohibit you from broadly buying their terms. However they can certainly choose not to do business with you for this reason, or for whatever reason they choose. They have no legal obligation to allow you to promote them. All the talk about what a casino can and can’t do legally is irrelevant if you want to do business with them. If they don’t like how you are promoting them, they don’t have to let you continue to affiliate for them.