Slashdot Mirror
Google Reaches $500 Million Settlement With Feds
bonch writes "As expected, Google will pay the government $500 million to settle a criminal probe into whether or not they profited from the display of ads from illegal online pharmacies. Google had vaguely referenced its settlement plans in a quarterly filing last May after charges that ads from rogue pharmacies were still appearing on Google despite a change in advertising policy. Drug advertising generates lucrative profits of about $1 billion, leading critics to charge that companies like Google aren't vigilant enough in policing their advertisers."
How does google know that they are illegal?
What makes one online pharmacy legal or illegal (maybe non-trivial for them to tell, since they aren't authorities), or are they all illegal (should be easy to check, makes them lazy/irresponsible for not checking)
So Google makes a billion dollars in profit doing something they later get fined half a billion dollars for. What exactly is the incentive to not do something like this again in the future? Seems like paying a fine is a cost of doing business that is well worth it in these cases!
So, did Google write a check or just put it on their Amex?
First of all, TFA makes it sound like a straightforward case of "don't advertise illegal crap". Google didn't outright take ads for vendors of illegal drugs, they took ads for entirely legal Canadian pharmacies. The FDA just doesn't like anyone cutting in on US pharmaceutical industry profits (even when the drugs come from those very same US companies).
Second, if merely accepting ads from unkosher sources commits a crime, then why the hell haven't the major broadcast networks gotten the smack-down for showing a non-stop string of crapvertisements from the likes of such blatant frauds as Enzyte and Head On?
Oh. Right. "Online", the magic word that makes everything old new and illegal again.
It's more common than you think. Ask your doctor to be sure.
This more has to do with the re-importation of the very same drugs that the Big Pharma companies want to sell to us at extremely high markups. This is not about safety it is about protecting profits for those companies. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
Sounds like Google has the "if I don't get caught have I done anything wrong" attitude and now are getting called out on it, makes me wonder just how many other instances of "see no evil, do no evil" the public and competitors don't know about.
From one of TFAs: "Web sites are liable for ads on their sites from advertisers that break federal criminal law."
Um, just how is one supposed to know - guarantee - that an advertiser is not breaking the law? This potentially affects anyone accepting advertising, all the way from Google down to the lowliest blog. It essentially requires the site accepting advertising to be legally expert in every possible realm of business. What is legal for pharmacies to do? How about alcohol sales? How about car rentals? How about chinese medicine? Unlicensed electricians? Farms that sell unpasteurized milk?
Idiocy - and it's a shame that Google settled.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
get in trouble for what the company in the ad is doing?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Or simply say no to parent's trolling. (No infringement vaguely proven, fragmentation, failures!?! Pleeze!)
Another health related issue being treated as if it were criminal.
First of all, TFA makes it sound like a straightforward case of "don't advertise illegal crap". Google didn't outright take ads for vendors of illegal drugs, they took ads for entirely legal Canadian pharmacies.
Er, citation needed. There's a bit of a history here indicating that Google was taking ads from just about anybody ... People have been selling prescription medicine on the internet forever. How real it is or where it comes from, what does it matter? The fact is that you need a prescription for it for a reason and those people get it without one.
The FDA just doesn't like anyone cutting in on US pharmaceutical industry profits (even when the drugs come from those very same US companies).
That or they are attempting to do their job to regulate medicine.
Second, if merely accepting ads from unkosher sources commits a crime, then why the hell haven't the major broadcast networks gotten the smack-down for showing a non-stop string of crapvertisements from the likes of such blatant frauds as Enzyte and Head On?
Because Head On and Enzyte don't contain prescription drugs? They're largely over the counter drugs? It's when you get into scheduled drugs that the federal government gets upset. Here's an example of Adderall and Vicodin.
Oh. Right. "Online", the magic word that makes everything old new and illegal again.
No, but it makes it easier for you to appear legitimate, make quick semi-anonymous transactions of money and do it across a border so it's harder for law enforcement to track. "Online" increases our ability to communicate, it increases our commerce and it greatly improves our quality of life but it also amplifies the potential of illicit and illegal activities (for the same reasons I just listed). It's a double edged sword.
Google set aside $500 million for this a while ago. I'm not saying that that act alone implies guilt but it certainly indicates that they were preparing for this. If they thought these claims were bogus, I bet they would have put that money to better use. They have a history, I see news articles about these illegal prescription-less pharmacies and I'm guessing that you're just blindly defending Google for god only knows why.
My work here is dung.
I would think that the Feds would want the criminals to advertise on Google. A criminal enterprise that advertises itself is much easier to catch than a more shadowy one that advertises through spam.
little things like if you are a taxi driver and were found out to provide services for a Serial Killer you are on the hook for all of his victims (just like you were the "wheelman" for a gang of thieves).
Depending on how miffed the authorities are when they catch somebody a lot of folks can be on the hook for crimes even though what they actually did is strictly Legal.
So yes i can see Google being on the hook for illegal pharmacy sites since they basically got a "cut" of the pharmacies take.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Tomorrow there will be a press release from the prosecutor. Some previous stories indicate that the drug ad business went beyond accidentally running such ads.
No, your buddy's doc prescribed them to him. You scanned it when he wasn't looking and "improved" the address on it before forwarding to a less-than-fussy Nigerian e-pharmacy with a Canadian website. They filled it with facimile products and dropshipped it via Hong Kong by courier to avoid US Postal police. You sell it to anonymous clients on the streetcorner. Everyone profits!
Advertising works, or nobody would pay for it, and you wouldn't have google to use.
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
First of all, TFA makes it sound like a straightforward case of "don't advertise illegal crap". Google didn't outright take ads for vendors of illegal drugs, they took ads for entirely legal Canadian pharmacies. The FDA just doesn't like anyone cutting in on US pharmaceutical industry profits (even when the drugs come from those very same US companies).
I suggest that you go to the source. Here's the release from the Department of Justice outlining the settlement, and here's the relevant passage:
The importation of prescription drugs to consumers in the United States is almost always unlawful because the FDA cannot ensure the safety and effectiveness of foreign prescription drugs that are not FDA-approved because the drugs may not meet FDA’s labeling requirements; may not have been manufactured, stored and distributed under proper conditions; and may not have been dispensed in accordance with a valid prescription. While Canada has its own regulatory rules for prescription drugs, Canadian pharmacies that ship prescription drugs to U.S. residents are not subject to Canadian regulatory authority, and many sell drugs obtained from countries other than Canada which lack adequate pharmacy regulations. ... “This investigation is about the patently unsafe, unlawful, importation of prescription drugs by Canadian on-line pharmacies, with Google’s knowledge and assistance, into the United States, directly to U.S. consumers,” said U.S. Attorney Neronha. [Emphasis mine]
It's not a matter of "advertising illegal crap", as you put it, and the fact that the Canadian pharmacies are "entirely legal" is irrelevant. As the statement in the DOJ release makes clear, these pharmacies aren't subject to the Canadian food and drug regulations, and are basically allowed to sell drugs to Americans from any source they see fit, however questionable. The FDA is in fact fulfilling it's basic mandate in this case, namely protecting the American public from drugs and medication whose standards they cannot ensure.
And for the consumption of idiots who think that Google is somehow the victim, here's another passage from the statement:
An investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Rhode Island and the FDA/OCI Rhode Island Task Force revealed that as early as 2003, Google was on notice that online Canadian pharmacies were advertising prescription drugs to Google users in the United States through Google’s AdWords advertising program. Although Google took steps to block pharmacies in countries other than Canada from advertising in the U.S. through AdWords, they continued to allow Canadian pharmacy advertisers to target consumers in the United States . Google was aware that U.S. consumers were making online purchases of prescription drugs from these Canadian online pharmacies, and that many of the pharmacies distributed prescription drugs, including controlled prescription drugs, based on an online consultation rather than a valid prescription from a treating medical practitioner. Google was also on notice that many pharmacies accepting an online consultation rather than a prescription charged a premium for doing so because individuals seeking to obtain prescription drugs without a valid prescription were willing to pay higher prices for the drugs. Further, from 2003 through 2009, Google provided customer support to some of these Canadian online pharmacy advertisers to assist them in placing and optimizing their AdWords advertisements, and in improving the effectiveness of their websites.
Google blocked foreign online pharmacies after being notified by the FDA in 2003 — except those from Canada. The statement also makes clear that customers were willing to pay online pharmacies a premium if they didn't have a valid prescription,
Google is many things. Google is awesome in it's interesting and fun methods and people. Google is a terrific contributor to the internet, technologies, F/OSS, and lots, lots more. Google is a huge game changer and a threat to many which the Slashdot crowd dislike and in many respects, a hero.
But Google is a marketing/advertisement company. They should always be regarded as such despite the fact that they are also many great things.
Let's just say that Google was caught "not being careful enough" which was technically their responsibility.
Ever try imprisoning a corporate person? How about imagining it?
There are generic variants of prescription medicine. Asking for something by a name they recognize can make them feel like it is a superior product.
Not me. Ads for drugs work. Who's going to tell his doctor about his limp virile member if he doesn't know that a treatment exists? Also, not all doctors are aware of all potential therapies, and some doctors are offered luxurious gifts by pharmaceutical companies in order to prescribe or recommend a particular drug over its alternatives. Patient education can overcome this conflict of interest, which is just advertising that you don't see. Sometimes you must ask for treatment in order to receive it. You can't always assume that your doctor knows or cares what's best for you.
He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
Since the invention of money?
He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
From the DOJ:
"Further, from 2003 through 2009, Google provided customer support to some of these Canadian online pharmacy advertisers to assist them in placing and optimizing their AdWords advertisements, and in improving the effectiveness of their websites."
"The investigation of Google had its origins in a separate, multimillion dollar financial fraud investigation unrelated to Google, the main target of which fled to Mexico. While a fugitive, he began to advertise the unlawful sale of drugs through Googleâ(TM)s AdWords program. After being apprehended in Mexico and returned to the United States by the U.S. Secret Service, he began cooperating with law enforcement and provided information about his use of the AdWords program. During the ensuing investigation of Google, the government established a number of undercover websites for the purpose of advertising the unlawful sale of controlled and non-controlled substances through Googleâ(TM)s AdWords program."
But now you have thousands of people coming home and saying, "Boy... that was a crappy day. Maybe I should turn on the TV..." Then they see an ad for some anti-depressant and think, "HOLY COW! I'm depressed!!! I better get put on these meds!" To accept this they take a long look in the mirror and notice they have dry red itchy eyes and think "I just saw a commercial for Clear Eyes!!!" I should get some so I don't look like crap and in the process it will make me less depressed!" All the while not knowing that they should be getting a lubricating drop rather than something that just constrict the blood vessels in your eye (i.e. they take the red out, but do very little else). By advertising drugs, you're tricking consumers into thinking they are educated, but most are actually clueless ass-onions.
people who are not doctors have no idea if they need a drug or not so they should not be allowed to be advertised. People going into a doctor's office and asking for a drug by name that they don't need is driving up health care costs.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hey, guess what! Some of those people who see that ad actually ARE depressed, and the ad may help them realize that is not normal, and there is help available. Some of the men who go to the doctor to get Viagra may find out they actually have heart problems they were otherwise unaware of, and they would never mention such an embarrassing symptom if they didn't know there was treatment for it. I personally know of a teenage girl who saw an ad for some diabetes related medicine and told her parents she matched the symptoms they described, and she was right.
Maybe in some fantasy world people will automatically know what are symptoms of problems that should be reported to a doctor. Maybe in this fantasy world someone will be spend a few million dollars on a SuperBowl ad to inform people of symptoms without trying to sell something. In the real world however, the ads DO make people more educated.
Telephone companies are legally immune to crimes planned while using their equipment. For most of their history its too difficult to police transmissions. Is an ISP or Google a carrier, content provider or both?
Helping people access cheap medication seems very non-evil. Don't think there were many reports of people being harmed. The FDA is 90% about controlling the market for profit and 10% about safety.
Helping people access cheap medication wIthout prescriptions, and which they know may cause harm, by deliberately ignoring the ramifications and enabling the suppliers solely because it's profitable, seems very non-evil to you?
You're not an idiot; you're a fucking idiot.
Slashdot moderation sucks.
It used to work better when there were fewer stories on slashdot. These days the front pages gets updated at such a rapid rate that I suspect a big chunk of readers with mod points going past just a few comments in any one story. If they keep jumping from story to story then faulty moderations are bound to go uncorrected for relatively long times.
Give it a while though; residents of the internet wake up at different times :)
Is an ISP or Google a carrier, content provider or both?
In the US, there's what's called Section 230 immunity for ISPs, which is part of the Communications Decency Act. However, Google's offenses relate to their advertising activities, which is a separate issue.
Because Google might decide that they have enough of governmental racket, and move out of USA.