Donald Trump has criticized Google, calling the company “crooked” and “illegal” after allegations surfaced that the search engine altered headlines for Kamala Harris’ campaign ads.
Trump warned that Google would “pay a big price” and shared an article claiming that the Harris-Walz campaign had edited headlines and descriptions in paid Google ads. The ads, sourced from media outlets like The Guardian, Reuters, and CNN, have sparked concerns about potential voter confusion despite being labelled as “sponsored.”
Trump took to Truth Social to voice his concerns, claiming that Google is an “Election Interference Machine” and warning that the company will “pay a big price” for its actions.
The controversy stems from accusations that the Harris-Walz campaign has edited headlines and descriptions from various news outlets, including The Guardian, Reuters, and CNN, in paid Google advertisements.
Although these ads are clearly labelled as “sponsored,” there is concern that the changes could mislead readers about the sources of the content.
Kartik Ahuja, founder of the marketing firm GrowthScribe, explained that the complexity of advertising regulations, coupled with lax enforcement, gives political campaigns the confidence to push boundaries.
Ahuja noted that while campaigners should ideally seek permission from content owners before using their material, Google does not require advertisers to provide proof of such consent.
This loophole, he said, allows political parties to repurpose content without explicit permission from the publishers.
The practice has drawn criticism from several news organizations, which have expressed concern over the unauthorized use of their content. USA Today, in particular, issued a statement saying, “We were not aware the Harris campaign was using our content in this manner. As a news organization, we are committed to ensuring that our stories are shared appropriately, adhering to the highest standards of integrity and accuracy.”
In response to the allegations, a Google spokesperson defended the company’s practices, stating that the edited ads do not violate their rules and are distinguishable as sponsored content.
Despite this, the incident has sparked a broader debate about the ethics and legality of political advertising in the digital age.
