California law, which, according to the AdWords Program Terms, applies to Anderson's transaction with Google, implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in all contracts between parties entered into in the State of California. Does Anderson's request violate this implied covenant?
....I think Anderson's on shaky legal ground driving prospective ad-clickers away from his ads and denying Google their reasonably-anticipated AdWords revenues from him.
So, if my guess is correct and Anderson's in breach of his implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with Google, what's his liability? Since this is Google and not Microsoft with which he's dealing, it's unlikely that Anderson will be half-hung, drawn and quartered. The Program Terms disclaim "consequential, special, indirect, exemplary, punitive and other damages" and provide that Anderson's probable liability would be measured by Google's lost per-click values. As Anderson cheerfully admits, his ad "sucks"; Google's losses due to his passing interference with his audience's natural ad-clicking tendencies are almost certainly negligible. A measure of damages more to Google's liking might be that suggested in a comment to Anderson's post: "Chris, how much will you pay us not to click on your ad?"
Read the whole post, especially the fun part at the end when he notes my comment that the actual benefit of my ads is probably close to zero: "It wouldn't take much legal woe to create an actual detriment somewhere south of zero." I think he's joking.