Slashdot Mirror
Google Expected to Settle Over Drug Ads, to the Tune of $500M
Animats writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that 'Google Inc. is close to settling a US criminal investigation into allegations it made hundreds of millions of dollars by accepting ads from online pharmacies that break US laws.' Google's acceptance of ads from unlicensed 'online pharmacies' is considered profiting from illegal activity. The Washington Post reports 'the inquiry could draw more attention to how vulnerable Google's automated system has been to the machinations of shady operators.'"
The expected settlement's magnitude was hinted at in a recent SEC filing, which disclosed that Google has set aside a half-billion dollar fund on which to draw in this case.
If a pharmacy sells prescription meds without a prescription, they should have their license revoked and it doesn't matter where they are. If a non-pharmacy sells meds... then the laboratory that sells it to them should have its license revoked !
Non-Linux Penguins ?
In the last week I've seen ads for "xforex.com" which are basically foreign exchange scams promising a 500% ROI.
I've definitely seen ads for 'online pharmacies', and possibly even for 'replica watches' ... I don't think Google cares about who they sell ads to, as long as they sell them.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Ayup. Just one more example of how corporations as people is a failed idea from the start. If an individual did this that person would be locked up in the pokey for a few years where their earning potential would be substantially more reduced.
Perhaps if we reformed the law so that coporations who so overtly break laws would be punished by, say, having to turn over ALL their profits for the next X months to the government as penalty - I bet far mroe corporations would reconsider such nose-thumbing.
drugs are controlled with prescriptions, because otherwise people would scarf down whatever they wanted. Imagine people eating antibiotics like candy? Where would this lead? or antipsychotics? Oh i think i have $whatever let me get some promadiazepam or whatsitsname
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
You think advertising spending alone for illegal drugs is billions? really? think about it.
This is kind of like a pharma doing shady things posting an advertisement in the paper, then the government fining the paper for accepting the advertising when the company shown was dodgy.
Unless google has specific legal obligations as an advertiser, the company that put the ad forward should be held accountable for their actions not google.
baddies putting ads out makes it easier for cops to catch them, so why punish the advertisers?
Hold the phone, here- Summary link to the Washington Post article says that it's Google's automated system, here. Google didn't look at these ads, say "Yup, that's a phony pharmacy ad", and then get rid of them- they were submitted automatically.
You'd think there'd be a DMCA-type thing where if a complaint was submitted about an ad it could be taken down. Bet there might be now.
Sent from my CR-48
Overuse of antibiotics leads to less effective antibiotics. So the effectiveness is a common resource which is not yours alone to squander.
Anything else though should be fair game.
FTA:
The federal investigation has examined whether Google knowingly accepted ads from online pharmacies, based in Canada and elsewhere, that violated U.S. laws, according to the people familiar with the matter.
So it looks like this is more of a cross-border shopping issue than anything else. People are going online and buying from Canadian companies things that are completely legal to buy and sell in Canada, but happen to be illegal where they are.
I'm not entirely sure why you didn't get this, since the article itself points it out, AND the comment you responded to points it out.
They still prohibit ads for legal products that they don't like:
http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/static.py?hl=en&topic=28436&guide=28435&page=guide.cs&answer=176077
"Google AdWords prohibits the promotion of certain weapons such as firearms, firearm components, ammunition, balisongs (switchblades), butterfly knives, and brass knuckles. This policy applies to the content of your ad and your website.
(Emphasis added.)
His point was that if you allow people to take antibiotics when they're unnecessary you'll exponentially increase the rate at which bacteria, for example. will grow resistant. Forgive me for the tired saying, but it's a very slippery slope and it's one that affects us all...
So who the fuck are you, sir, to complain about using something that you clearly don't understand?
His point was that if you allow people to take antibiotics when they're unnecessary you'll exponentially increase the rate at which bacteria, for example. will grow resistant. Forgive me for the tired saying, but it's a very slippery slope and it's one that affects us all...
It's a stupid argument and you are stupid to defend it when you don't understand it. It's a true statement but it has nothing to do with anything here. People are not repeat not prescribing themselves exotic antibiotics that everything and its mom is not already resistant to, but they are trying to get them cheaper from other countries because their insurance will cover only part (or none!) of the cost. These people are not any more or less likely to take the full run than someone who can afford to go buy them at the local pharmacy, or whose insurance is of sufficient quality to cover the medications they require. Remember, we already have the "death panels" that some feared would be sentencing their grandmother to death. They are simply operated by private concerns without oversight rather than government entities with insufficient oversight.
So who the fuck are you, sir, to complain about using something that you clearly don't understand?
Right back atcha, me laddo.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
On the one hand, if the feds have internal emails or similar to the effect of "Sales minion: 'Hey boss, the new clients are clearly illegal scammers.' Sales Manager: 'Minion, illegal scammers pay good money for ads. You didn't see them. Also, unless I 'don't see' at least 30% more by the end of the fiscal year your ass is out the door..." then there is a good argument to be made that Google ought to be on the hook.
There are two aspects that worry me, though: Presumably, as with many high-volume electronic services, most of the bulk Adwords sales receive basically no human scrutiny, and would probably have transaction costs too high to be workable if they did. Many online services are like that, many retail services are like that, cheap cellphones, etc, etc. Creating an implied duty to vet all customers for virtually anything that might have criminal use, on pain of major lawsuits/fines should some of the customers turn out to be criminals, seems wildly dangerous. Even the largely draconian DMCA specifically avoided doing that.
Second, of course, is the concern about making the internet either a highly fragmented geolocated-to-death zone, or an "all entities bound by the union of all sets of laws" one. In this case, for instance, a nontrivial percentage of the US lies pretty close to the Canadian border. It is hardly implausible that canadian businesses might wish to advertise to american audiences certain goods and services that are only legal if they cross the border, nor is doing so obviously criminal(in a similar vein, there isn't anything illegal about running ads for Vegas vacations in states that ban gambling, or prostitution ads in Vegas, despite the fact that you have to leave the county to legally purchase the services offered.)
Obviously, a nontrivial percentage of discount canadian pharmacies do offer to assist in breaking US law, by mailing you some drugs, often with minimal documentation, and a nontrivial percentage of ads for gambling are for illegal online betting, rather than for visits to establishments in different jurisdictions; but it isn't as though a simple keyword search is necessarily going to distinguish between the two, and a crackdown on something with legitimate applications always has potential to go to unfortunate places...
It wasn't so long ago you could purchase antibiotics. A lot of first aid kits used to supply antibiotics. The problem they found, people did take antibiotics and worse, not a full regiment, which created antibiotic resistant strains of bugs. They started requiring prescriptions by doctor and that largely addressed the issue until doctors started over prescribing once big pharm starting giving rewards for pushing drugs.
Somehow, people in Europe and elsewhere around the world are able to buy drugs over-the-counter that are prescription-only here in the US. Yet they continue to survive.
Does that mean Americans are so genetically inferior that we need special protections from ourselves or that all the laws regarding "prescription drugs" are just a giveaway to big pharmaceutical corporations who give a flying fuck about consumers' health and who get this giveaway because they pump dollars into campaign funds?
And that applies especially to the optical industry in America, where you not only need a prescription to buy a pair of glasses, but it has to be a recent prescription. I need glasses and my "prescription" for glasses hasn't changed in nearly twenty years, yet if I want a new pair of glasses and haven't seen an eye-doctor in the past year I have to go pony up just to get a piece of paper. No wonder our health care is more expensive than anywhere in the world.
(Fortunately, there are places on the internet where I can get a pair of glasses, and decent ones, for under fifty bucks without a prescription). But I'm sure the optical industry is working tirelessly to put a stop to that.
It's enough to put one off of this so-called "free market capitalism" entirely.
You are welcome on my lawn.
People will fail to finish the course of antibiotics whether the doctor prescribed them or they bought them themselves.
If the problem is antibiotics then the law ought to say "antibiotics" and the problem is solved.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"