In 2006, Shivaun and Adam Raff launched Foundem, a price comparison website they had built with high hopes and significant personal investment.
Foundem aimed to allow users to compare prices across a wide range of products, from flights to electronics, something few other sites offered at the time. But their launch day turned out to be the beginning of an unexpected and arduous journey.
Almost immediately, Foundem was hit by a search penalty from Google’s spam filters, burying the site far down the search results for key terms like “price comparison.”
This penalty, later understood as a demotion, was significant for a business model that depended on visibility in search engines. Foundem charged fees when users clicked through to product listings, a model that relied on strong positioning in search results. Yet Google’s penalty made it almost impossible for users to find them. As Adam recalls, “If you’re denied traffic, then you have no business.”
The struggle for visibility and the start of a legal battle
In the beginning, the Raffs believed this issue was a mistake—a false flag in Google’s spam detection system. They reached out to Google multiple times, hoping to have the penalty lifted, but after more than two years of trying, nothing changed.
Meanwhile, Foundem continued to rank well on other search engines, yet, as Shivaun noted, Google’s dominance in the search market meant that other platforms didn’t matter much.
The couple began to suspect that this might be more than just an error. As other comparison websites also struggled to appear in Google search results, they realised this could be a pattern. When they found little success addressing their concerns directly with Google, they took the fight public. Going to the press and appealing to regulators, they found support from the European Commission (EC) in Brussels, which ultimately launched an antitrust investigation in 2010.
By 2017, this investigation led to a landmark ruling in which Google was fined €2.4 billion for favouring its own services and demoting competitors like Foundem. While the Raffs’ persistence finally paid off in this historic decision, Google continued to appeal the fine for several years, even though Europe’s top court upheld the ruling in 2024.
Why this matters for affiliates
For affiliates, Foundem’s story highlights the power that platforms like Google hold over the success or failure of online businesses. Affiliates depend on visibility to drive traffic and conversions, just as Foundem relied on search visibility to reach users.
When a dominant player like Google has the power to determine which sites receive traffic, it can have a major impact on affiliate businesses and other traffic-dependent models.
The case serves as a reminder of the importance of diversifying traffic sources.
Affiliates who rely solely on Google for visibility are at risk of sudden algorithm changes, penalties, or other actions that could impact their earnings. As this case illustrates, even a successful site with a valuable service can face existential risks if it depends too heavily on one platform for visibility.
Additionally, the Raffs’ experience sheds light on the need for regulation in tech. Affiliates and other online businesses have limited options if they believe they are unfairly penalised.
Cases like Foundem’s underscore the role of regulatory bodies in balancing the market power of tech giants to ensure smaller businesses have a fair chance.
The impact of Big Tech’s dominance on the digital market
Google’s dominance in search and advertising grants it a significant influence over online visibility. For competitors in sectors like e-commerce, comparison shopping, and affiliate marketing, this influence can make or break business success. Foundem’s demotion due to an algorithmic penalty—or, as the Raffs believe, a deliberate move to favour Google’s own services—highlights the control Google has over market access.
The outcome of this case, including the €2.4 billion fine and subsequent investigations under the EU’s Digital Markets Act, demonstrates a shift in how regulators view Big Tech. With new measures in place, the European Commission and other regulatory bodies aim to prevent companies like Google from using their platforms to favour their own products and services.
For affiliates, this case emphasises the value of fair competition. Without it, affiliates face higher costs for ads, tougher battles for organic visibility, and fewer options to reach audiences without relying on major platforms’ paid services.
The ongoing battle
Even after Google’s defeat in the European Court of Justice, the Raffs continue their fight. They believe that Google’s behaviour has not changed significantly and are pursuing a civil damages claim due to begin in 2026. For them, this battle was always about more than just their own business.
As Shivaun put it, “We really don’t like bullies.” This sense of justice drove them to take on a legal battle that few others were willing to pursue, especially against a company as influential as Google.
As affiliates look to the future, Foundem’s story is a cautionary tale of the risks of platform dependency and a call for vigilance in protecting their own business interests. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of having multiple channels and building a resilient business model that doesn’t rely too heavily on one platform.
By following these lessons and remaining aware of the power dynamics at play in digital marketing, affiliates can better position themselves for long-term stability.
Foundem’s battle may have come at a great personal cost to the Raffs, but it paved the way for increased regulatory scrutiny of Big Tech—a change that benefits affiliates and online businesses around the world.
