Connecticut Internet Sales Tax Hurts Affiliate Marketers

What is the new Connecticut Internet Sales Tax supposed to do?

Connecticut has recently passed a bill which requires internet retailers to charge a sales tax on all goods sold in Connecticut if the internet retailer has a physical presence in the state.

Connecticut lawmakers considered the law necessary to hold Amazon.com and other online retailers accountable like all other businesses in the state. Lawmakers argue that it is not fair for Connecticut based ‘brick and mortar’ business to be subject to the state’s sales tax while Amazon.com is not. Aside from raising funds for the state in this time of economic uncertainty, the bill was also designed to protect Connecticut business from being unfairly outsold by online retailers not subject to the same tax laws.

Why did Amazon.com pull out of Connecticut?

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a state can only tax an entity if that entity has some kind of a physical presence in the state. Regardless of whether Amazon.com has an actual physical ‘brick and mortar’ presence in Connecticut, the Connecticut legislature’s bill considers Connecticut-based bloggers and other internet content providers who advertise for Amazon.com a sufficient physical presence to subject Amazon.com to the tax. These bloggers and others or ‘affiliates’ advertise for Amazon.com because they receive a portion of the revenue generated by users accessing Amazon through their site.

After the new Connecticut Internet Sales Tax was passed, Amazon.com decided that it would rather give up on Connecticut based affiliates than be forced to pay Connecticut’s sales tax. In its economic calculation, Amazon probably found it more profitable to continue selling goods in Connecticut without having to pay the tax, than it would have been to continue advertising with Connecticut-based affiliates, while being subject on all sales to Connecticut’s new tax.

What effect will the Connecticut Internet Sales Tax have on Connecticut and on Amazon.com?

The immediate effect of the Connecticut Internet Sales Tax has been both a loss to Amazon.com and a loss to the Connecticut based affiliates that had previously generated income from Amazon’s advertisements on their websites. Amazon.com suffers to some extent because it can no longer advertise on the popular Connecticut blogs and websites it on which it had previously been an active advertiser.

To the Connecticut based affiliates, the Connecticut Internet Sales Tax will be perhaps even more traumatic. Not only is Amazon.com prevented from advertising on Connecticut based websites, but other online retailers might also fear subjugation to the Connecticut Internet Sales Tax, and avoid placing any advertisements on Connecticut affiliates websites. Perhaps the law is fair in the long run, as it prevents online retailers from having an unfair advantage, but in the short term, the Connecticut Internet Sales Tax cannot be said to be popular with either online retailers or the Connecticut-based affiliates that were once dependent on them.

Share

Brand Hijacking: Using Your Competitor’s Name In Google AdWords

brand hijacking pay-per-click

Should brand hijacking be allowed in PPC campaigns?

What’s happening with Brand Hijacking?

Many have become both aware and concerned that Google AdWords and other pay-per-click (PCC) allows advertisers to take advantage of the names and identities of their competitors through brand hijacking.

For example, Google AdWords allows advertisers to promote their website whenever a Google search includes words the advertiser chooses. As Google pictured it, a boot salesman could participate in AdWords by selecting words like “western boots” which, if searched by a Google user, would show the boot salesman’s website. Though pictured by Google representatives as a way to generate a profit for Google while directing specific users to the websites that want them, business competitors have taken advantage of Google’s program in a controversial way.

What do courts say about the legality of brand hijacking?

Instead of choosing a phrase like ‘western boots’ to generate traffic to their website, some PPC users have chosen the names, including trademarks, of their competitors to generate traffic. For example, lawyers have secured the names of their competitors in PPC campaigns.  In this way, an Internet user attempting to find a specific attorney will have a second competing attorney’s name appear in advertising because that second attorney tagged the first attorney’s name in the pay-per-click campaign.

Essentially, this piggybacking on more successful or better known identities has spawned controversy because some lawyers have claimed that they have lost business as a result of PPC advertising allowing their business competitors to commandeer customers from them who specifically type in their name.

Claiming that individuals have the right to use, and prevent the misuse of their names, the issue was litigated in a Wisconsin court recently. While the court recognized that individuals do have some ‘right of publicity’ to preserve the integrity of their names, the court found that freedom of speech guarantees extend to business people using the names of their competitors in Google’s AdwWords program.

What does this type of brand hijacking mean for the future of the internet?

While future brand hijacking litigation will determine what the internet will look like in regard to PPC campaigns, if courts use the same logic the Wisconsin court did in preserving freedom of speech, U.S.-based businesses will likely be freely able to use their competitors’ names to generate website views. This has the potential to materially devalue brands and related trademarks.

Perhaps such freedom will enable newcomers to different professions to advertise and compete in a more even-keeled manner with established businesses. However, opponents of pay-per-click (PPC) being used in such a way have strong arguments on their side in favor of an individual’s right to control the use and misuse of his or her very name in brand hijacking campaigns.

Share

Free! Get Internet legal and marketing updates plus 3 chapters of the #1 Internet legal protection book for business website owners. Over 40 pages packed with strategies you can use to protect yourself without a lawyer.