advertising

I'm fine with google tracking and advertising to me.

Bots were loading pages and driving up our advertising costs.

Whatever you say about the size of display ads, search advertising is still far bigger.

They provided a boilerplate version of the ad and I gave them the 4chan-appropriate keywords to use with it. They've always been great to work with re: advertising.

Why would the largest advertising company in the world want to place a screen between my eyeballs and reality?

We've had so much marketed to us for so long so pervasively that we genuinely do not respond to advertising.

Are we accusing Facebook of using bots to drive up advertising revenue.

Here, the result would turn on the ability to show that the parties sued are in fact engaged in false or deceptive advertising.

Therefore the service should have to prove the results are accurate before advertising it as a first step in prevention.

They are basically advertising platforms for real estate agents.

Instead they tend to either a pay a chunk via a buyout, or they generate income over time with advertising/partnerships.

The site charged for access to, and provided advertising around, pirated content.

Note: google display network advertising is equally useless/fraudulent.

There is a looming realization of Google controlling the majority of online advertising and that one mistake will probably haunt me for many years/services to come.

I also had the pleasure of interacting with BetaPunch's Twitter account a while back: they posted several tweets advertising that they were doing user testing for our service.

Here are some other reasons:1- WiFi drains battery fast, therefore advertising instant WiFi unlocking was foolish, if not purposefully misleading from the beginning.

It was originally designed in contrast to gmail scanning your email for targeted advertising, but my imperfect memory says that their system should also have been resilient to "we have a warrant, hand over the data.

One competitor can indeed sue another competitor for private damages and other relief if the other competitor is gaining an unfair competitive advantage by falsely advertising that its products or services do something that is material to the customer's decision to use that product or service.