Google users faced with irrelevant and potentially harmful ads, Which? finds, as it calls on CMA to take action against search monopoly

Which? is urging the CMA to take strong action, as new research from the consumer champion shows how users of search engines, including Google, are increasingly faced with irrelevant, useless, or potentially harmful ads.

Under controlled lab conditions, the consumer champion tested four of the UK's main search engines - Google, Bing, Yahoo Search and DuckDuckGo - to establish both how prevalent ads are in search results, and the relevance of those ads.

The results included suspected adverts for US visa scams, dubious whiskey barrel investments and “commemorative” coins featuring an assassination attempt on US President Donald Trump.

At their best, adverts should be useful and relevant, helping businesses reach new customers, and consumers to find the right services for them. For that reason, thousands of UK businesses - including Which? - advertise on search engines.

However, Which?'s investigation found worrying examples of adverts that in many cases were irrelevant, or at worst, potentially harmful - risking delivering consumers into the arms of scammers or leading them to unnecessary expense.

Searches were based on a bank of 20 queries, with half related to products and services - for example, how to find the best air fryers or dog food - while the other half were informational searches, which included health and wellbeing questions like how to lose weight quickly, and personal finance queries.

In total, Which? ran 520 online searches, reviewing around 5,000 individual results. In each case, researchers checked the percentage of advertising that appeared in the top 10 results, as well as the side bars and top bars across the four search engines.

Google accounts for 90 per cent of the UK search market, and is so widely used that ‘Googling' has become shorthand for any internet search. Yet Which?'s investigation found as many as a fifth (18%) of top Google results were adverts rather than organic results on average, which rose to around a third on certain searches - pushing down the relevant, organic results.

Google processes nearly six million web searches a minute, and while adverts generally have a relatively small click-through rate of one or two per cent, compared to around 27.6 per cent for the highest organic links, according to digital media firm Backlinko, that could still equate to millions of people clicking through to ads every day.

When researchers searched the term ‘How can I earn more on my savings?', Google served an ad for a whiskey barrel investment opportunity. Which? has previously warned about these types of investment, which are not only complex and potentially risky, but have also been known to be exploited by scammers, with people conned into purchasing stakes in barrels that do not exist. 

Similarly, when searching for US visa advice, Google, along with its rivals, served up ads for private companies offering US visa services. Which? has previously found that many such companies charge rip-off rates to “assist” with visa applications - in this particular case the advertised company charged a 466 per cent mark up on a service that cost just £16 ($21) via official channels. These services arguably cause consumers financial harm, and in the worst case scenarios, these websites can be entirely fraudulent. Which? has previously reported on scam victims who paid for visas that never arrived.

In other cases Which? found the ads served by Google were simply irrelevant. For example, when carrying out a more niche search for ‘best price on running shoes for flat feet', Google returned ads for a private tutoring service. 

More positively, for certain sensitive searches, researchers found Google only provided relevant organic search results. These included searches such as ‘What are the symptoms of menopause?' and ‘Is my money safe if a firm is FCA regulated?'

Bing, which has a 3.94 per cent share of the UK search market, had the highest proportion of advertising of the four firms Which? examined, with nearly half (47%) of the top results being ads. A third of the top Yahoo results (33%) were ads, and one in six (16%) were ads on DuckDuckGo. Many of Yahoo's search and ad results are provided by Bing, while ads on DuckDuckGo are also syndicated from Bing. As with Google, researchers found examples of potentially worrying or unhelpful ad results across all three sites.

There were a number of dubious results for medical queries. When searching ‘What are the symptoms of menopause?', Yahoo allowed ads for suspect home testing kits, and a menopause drugs website with no clear warnings to consult medical advice before proceeding. Similarly, when searching ‘How often should I take 100 mg of tramadol?', DuckDuckGo had ads for herbal knee patches, along with advice on how much tramadol to give to a dog. 

Other results were simply bizarre. Confusingly, when researchers asked ‘Is my money safe if a firm is FCA regulated?' Bing and DuckDuckGo presented adverts for physical safes, and when searching the exchange rate from pounds to dollars on DuckDuckGo, the search engine served up a Temu ad for collectors coins - including one marking the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. 

It's clear from Which?'s latest investigation that the user experience on search engines is frequently poor, with tech companies appearing to often prioritise unsuitable ads over relevant organic results. Previous research has shown Google and other search engines to be rife with scam ads, from investment scams to phishing attempts.

Google's dominance over search has also proved controversial, with common criticisms including excessive advertising costs and issues with control over personal data.

In January, the Competitions and Markets Authority (CMA) used new powers - campaigned for by Which? - to open an investigation into whether to regulate Google search. Which? Is urging the CMA to intervene in the market and use its new powers to improve competition - essential to driving up standards for consumers and businesses alike.

Rocio Concha, Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy, said:

“When we use a search engine like Google, we're paying for its service with a very valuable commodity: our personal data. In return, consumers should expect to access useful, relevant information - but our research found that all too often the results are plagued with irrelevant and even potentially harmful adverts. 

“Which? campaigned for the CMA to receive new powers to improve competition in key digital markets, and it's essential it now uses these to intervene in the UK search market. 

“Only with increased competition can we hope to drive up standards across the market and improve the experience for users. As part of this, the CMA should make it easier for consumers to exercise choice over the search engine they use, and allow more control over the collection and use of personal data.”

-ENDS-

Notes to editors:

Methodology

• Which? ran 520 online searches, reviewing 5,000 individual results in total from Google, Bing, Yahoo Search and DuckDuckGo.
  
  

• In each case, researchers worked under lab-controlled conditions, and used a default set-up for ‘clean' results, i.e. not one signed into a Google account or with a browsing history.
  
  

• All engines were tested on five browser variations - Chrome (PC), Edge, Safari, Chrome (Mac) and Edge (Mac).
  
  

• Researchers selected 20 search questions – half were for products or services like air fryers, cheap TVs and organic dog food. The other half were information searches, such as ‘what is normal for blood pressure' and ‘how can I earn more on my savings?'.
  
  

• Based on industry standard measuring tools, these questions were genuine things people wanted to know, including extremely popular searches, and what's called ‘long-tail' searches, which are less popular but still consistently made. The latter are much more niche and specialised terms, such as ‘Best price on running shoes for flat feet' or ‘How often should I take 100 mg of tramadol?'.
  
  

• Researchers then analysed the first 10 search results presented to them including what are called ‘organic' results (websites shown naturally by the search engines based on an algorithm which dictates the relevance to the original query). The results also included ads and other content boxes, such as shopping carousels (sometimes paid advertising), boxes featuring related questions, snippets quoted from websites and also AI overviews.
  
  

• In addition to the core test on PCs and Macs, researchers ran a cutdown test on iOS and Android smartphones involving six questions and analysing eight results on each run.
  
  

Previous research

- Previous Which? research has highlighted widespread examples of scam adverts on Google. These include scam BA and Tesco adverts, fake glamping sites, fake Lyca mobile adverts, and more.

-Which? has previously warned about whisky barrel investments, which are unregulated and highly risky. It has been well documented that many of these investments are often exploited by fraudsters. Read more here.

- The consumer champion has also previously spoken to people who have fallen victim to Visa scams - see more here.

How to be a savvier searcher

Whatever you're searching for, it's always worth being vigilant about dodgy ads, misleading information and possible scams. 

1. Know what's an ad 

First of all, it's worth checking over a search page on your chosen engine to ensure you know exactly what is an ad. It isn't always clear, and you could be clicking on links without realising they've paid to rank so highly. Look for ‘Ad' or ‘Sponsored', and there's sometimes a tool tip (three little dots on Google) that displays information on who has bought the ad.

2. What's the source? 

Once you're browsing beyond the ads, consider with all the information you see, who produced it and why. Just because someone has gone to the trouble of making a website, doesn't mean they've passed editorial checks on what they're presenting. We've never had more information at our fingertips, but the cost is that misinformation can spread rapidly.

3. Click with caution 

When we go online we often forget our natural instincts to sniff out trouble. If someone accosted you in the street and gave a sales pitch, you would no doubt rebuff them quickly. So exert the same level of wariness for anything presented online. This is especially the case with ads, as the publisher has paid to get your attention. 

4. Trust the experts
   
   All search engines try to elevate expert voices, but they're not consistent. Try to seek out legitimate sources of information, such as the NHS. With anything that is less well-known don't take what's said solely on its own merit, especially if it's on a forum or social media site. Always look for at least a few other sources to back up what is claimed.
   
   

5. Be careful what you share

You should be able to search the web and protect your privacy. You can adjust your browser settings to lock down data sharing, or use plug-ins, like Ghostery or Privacy Badger on Chrome. Or, shift to a new browser, such as Firefox, Brave or Safari on Mac/iOS. Which?'s previous research has shown this reduces the amount you're tracked.

6. Use an ad blocker

Alongside tools for reducing how much data you share, you can block ads entirely. If you want to stick with Chrome, AdBlock, Ghostery or Privacy Badger are useful plug-ins to cut out the advertising you see and make browsing a cleaner experience. Do bear in mind that some websites and services, such as online booking sites, won't work as easily with ad blockers.

Rights of reply:

Google told Which? that 80% of Google searches don't show ads, and it will never serve more than four text ads. It has ‘strict' policies for what ads can be displayed, including on financial searches, suspected scams and government services. Google says its mission is to serve helpful ads, and said it blocked or removed 5.5bn ads in 2022. In 2023 it removed 206.5 million advertisements for violating its misrepresentation policy, which includes many scam tactics, and 273.4 million advertisements for violating its financial services policy.

Yahoo declined to provide a statement for publication.

A Microsoft (Bing) spokesperson said: “We are regularly tuning the experience of Search to improve the authority and credibility of web results, which underpin our responses. Microsoft is not only committed to Search but is leading the charge to radically reimagine what search means. By combining intelligent AI with user-centric design, Microsoft is transforming search from static blue links into easily digestible results tailored to users' specific questions. Search is at the heart of how we interact with the internet, and Microsoft's AI-powered search ensures you get the information you need, faster. “

A DuckDuckGo spokesperson said: “"We constantly work to improve the relevance of our private ads and search results (which we combine from a variety of sources). For example, over the last few weeks we've reduced the number of ads that show up for navigational queries, i.e. when someone is trying to navigate to a website directly and an advertisement gets in the way. But in a landscape where one player has so much scale, Google is able to attract a lot more advertisers than us. We hope the CMA will decisively act to enable competition in the UK search engine market."