网络广告合同纠纷中搜索引擎的法律责任分析——由欺诈性点击引发的思考【摘要】网络广告是网站经营收入的主要来源。业界领先的搜索引擎*[ 本论文标题与正文中出现的“搜索引擎”一词，一般均指以搜索引擎服务为主要业务或重要业务的互联网公司，如GOOGLE，BAIDU等具有独立法人资格的民事主体，少数情形下作为搜索相关的互联网服务项目或网络用户的应用工具来使用。]，如谷歌（Google)、百度(Baidu）等作为网络经济巨人，成功的推广了点击付费模式广告业务。随着无效点击和欺诈性点击行为的披露，搜索引擎作为广告经营者，多次被广告客户提起诉讼。对此类纠纷中欺诈性点击的概念，以及如何认定搜索引擎法律责任及其责任类型等问题，各国立法并未作出具体规定。英美法系国家因其判例法传统和司法上的灵活性仍可以作出符合个案正义的裁判，而我国在具体法律规定方面的不完善可能增加裁判的不确定性，不利于合同纠纷的解决。网络广告合同纠纷中搜索引擎法律责任的研究，具有重要的理论意义。一方面，通过分析点击付费模式网络广告合同的形成，有利于理论层面探究全新合同形式下如何平衡当事人的权利义务；另一方面，由合同目的和期待利益出发，以法律人的思维确定当事人的行为性质，有利于建立法律责任归结时的法理基础，在一定程度上有助于克服现有法律在科技进步背景下的僵化。本文的实践意义在于针对网络广告合同纠纷相关案例，分析搜索引擎违约或侵权的可能性，为裁判活动提供参考；对于广告客户受到的潜在损害，研究法律救济方式，为网络广告合同纠纷甚至诉讼的解决提供有益的思路。本文的导论部分引入问题，即欺诈性点击引发网络广告合同纠纷时，如何确定搜索引擎法律责任。接下来的第一部分，介绍点击付费模式网络广告合同，总结其特征。第二部分分析欺诈性点击从而定位合同纠纷的主要争议之所在，探讨搜索引擎的合同义务范围，进而引用相关案例结合不同情形来分析搜索引擎的法律责任。第三部分提出解决问题的思路，笔者在立法、司法等方面提出了一些建议，以期减少纠纷和解决纠纷。最后是结束语，概括本文的研究结果。总的说来，网络广告合同履行过程中，欺诈性点击有可能对广告客户的利益造成损害，对此种损害应当得到救济。如何通过法律途径如何进行救济？本文认为，明确搜索引擎的合同义务，确定追究其法律责任的方式方法，就是关键之所在。区分不同情况，运用不同的责任形式，可以最大程度的在合同双方当事人之间实现公平、合理。
【英文摘要】Online ads is the main income source of the websites, especially for Search Engine those who have hold advanced position in IT industry. The prosperity of their business results from CPC mode. Recently, some invalid clicks and fraudulent clicks got revealed to public, and Search Engine, as online ads operator, started to be defendants in lawsuits. However, there is very few detailed regulation about fraudulent clicks or "click fraud" in our country or aboard. In common legal system, judges could hold a case depending on either law principle or precedent cases. In our country, lack of particular provisions would add the uncertainty in the procedure and interfere with the uniform of judicature. There are theoretical values to study the problem. It will be very helpful for solve the problem to balance the rights and obligations between both parties through analyzing the forming of online ads carefully. Thinking about the aim of the contract and expected benefits from the contract, I try to make certain the characters of acts by using legal logic, and get conclusions about the theory's foundation.In the paper, I revealed the practical meaning of the problem solution after analyzing the possibility of breach of contract or tort based on online ads contract. Then the similar trial in our country could get some reference from the conclusion. I believe that advertisers deserved compensation because they suffered from fraudulent clicks organized stealthily. When the paper was focused on the potential damages, a list of liabilities against the Search Engines was presented. I wish others could pick up some thoughts from my paper.The paper consists of five sectors. Foreword part introduced the contract problem arising from fraudulent clicks, then the problem in a limited scope. Part 1 introduced the online ads contract base on CPC model and summarized the characters of the contract. Part 2 managed to crack the dispute matter between the parties as far I figured out the range of contract obligation burdened by Search Engine. Then I cited related cases in order to make certain their liabilities from what they done in different ways. Part 3 stated the solutions on the matter. I made suggestions on legislation and judicature and wish that is helpful on law practice. The last sector is conclusion, which summed up the viewpoints. In general, as fraudulent clicks could harm the advertiser's benefit in the process of developing the contract, the application of law could relieve the damage. In the paper, I believe that the key to solve the problem is to ascertain the obligation range of Search Engine because that is the precondition in pursuit of their liability. After that we could achieve the fair solution between the two parties after different allegations are put forward depending on different conditions.