In the last years I have come across so many cases where Google is using their position to take advantage of their clients. I am therefore compiling this page / post of the fraud cases that I report to the European Commission.
I once loved the company Google and their product. But my fondness deteriorated as the years went on.
In 2014 I wrote an article called “The Google Boom is Over” wherein I explained that the search market was stagnating.
In 2018 I wrote another article “Is Google still your friend?” about their greed and how they are using their position earn more money. I mentioned that their product was still ok but not always.
In 2025 I am thoroughly convince the company has to change otherwise it will not get out of the dark hole it has slipped into. At this time I no longer believe there is an honest way out.
I will report some of the things I see to the European Commission and add them here.
My purpose is to force the company to take action. To end their greed and focus on delivering a fair service.
This is no longer possible.
This is the definition of fair per the 1913 websters dictionary:
Characterized by frankness, honesty, impartiality, or candor; open; upright; free from suspicion or bias; equitable; just; — said of persons, character, or conduct; as, a fair man; fair dealing; a fair statement. “I would call it fair play.” Shak.
If one has to suspect their actions and wonder if they will steal your money, then it is no longer free.
Report 2.03.2025 – Google Ads’ Misleading Close Variant Matching
This report was sent to the EU Commission “comp-whistleblower@ec.europa.eu” | the Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice antitrust.atr@usdoj.gov |
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding Google Ads’ misleading handling of keyword matching, specifically their “close variant” system. Google’s system overrides advertiser intent by expanding keyword meanings far beyond reasonable interpretation, resulting in irrelevant traffic, wasted advertising spend, and financial harm to businesses.
Google’s Definition of Close Variants
According to Google’s own documentation:
“Close variants allow keywords to match to searches that are similar, but not identical to the targeted keyword, and help you connect with people who are looking for your business—despite slight variations in the way they search—reducing the need to build out exhaustive keyword lists to reach these customers.”
(Source: Google Ads Help)
However, my advertising data demonstrates that Google’s interpretation of Close Variants is neither precise nor meaningfully restricted. Instead, Google is matching search queries that have no direct relationship with the advertiser’s keyword, effectively forcing businesses to pay for clicks that do not align with their services.
Evidence of Misleading Keyword Matching & Financial Harm
Below are specific examples from my Search Terms Report, illustrating how Google’s algorithm is incorrectly matching searches to my keywords, leading to unnecessary costs:
- Search Query: creahome wien
- Matched Keyword: “inneneinrichtung wien”
- Cost Per Click: €9.74
- Issue: “Creahome” is likely a business name, yet it was treated as a search for interior design services, forcing me to pay for an unrelated click.
- Search Query: royal home 1100
- Matched Keyword: “inneneinrichtung wien”
- Cost Per Click: €8.59
- Issue: This appears to be a specific real estate or housing-related search, not a query for interior design services.
- Search Query: gero wudia
- Matched Keyword: “innenraumgestaltung wien”
- Cost Per Click: €8.49
- Issue: “Gero Wudia” is a name, not a relevant search for interior design, yet Google treated it as such.
- Search Query: nichts neues wien
- Matched Keyword: “inneneinrichtung wien”
- Cost Per Click: €8.42
- Issue: The phrase “nichts neues” (meaning “nothing new”) has no connection to interior design services, making this an unjustified match.
Why This is a Serious Issue
- Google is violating its own definition of Close Variants. Advertisers expect that their ads will only be shown for queries that are similar in intent to their targeted keywords. Instead, Google’s broad interpretation forces them to pay for irrelevant traffic.
- Financial Harm to Advertisers. Google’s aggressive expansion of keyword meanings results in inefficient spending, where advertisers must pay for completely unrelated searches.
- Lack of Transparency & Control. Google removes advertiser choice, overriding the actual intent behind the keywords.
- Unjustified Costs. Advertisers are paying €8-10 per click for search terms that are completely unrelated to their services.
- Possible Anticompetitive Practices. Google’s monopoly on search advertising means advertisers have no viable alternative, forcing them into a system where their budgets are drained by irrelevant clicks.
Request for Government Review & Action
I urge your office to investigate Google’s misleading close variant system and its impact on businesses. Specifically, I request:
- Regulatory Oversight – A review of whether Google’s close variant expansion violates fair advertising practices by misleading advertisers about how keyword matching is supposed to work.
- Transparency Requirements – Google should be required to provide an opt-out option for advertisers who do not want their keywords altered beyond reasonable close variants.
- Accountability Measures – Google should allow businesses to dispute and receive refunds for irrelevant clicks caused by misinterpretation of search intent.
Given Google’s dominant position in online advertising, their unchecked control over keyword matching directly affects thousands of businesses that rely on digital advertising to reach customers. Their current system prioritizes ad revenue over advertiser intent, leading to unfair and deceptive advertising costs.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your response regarding any potential investigation or regulatory measures that can be taken.
Sincerely,Steven Ruesch
PS: If you need more evidence. Please let me know and I will gladly send you more.
