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."
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!
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.
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.
Isn't it sort of the government's responsibility to crack down on illegal activity, and not the search engines'? Is Google now the police? Should they be expected to recognize every crime online and somehow thwart it? If they index a security camera, which happens to record a crime, and Google could have reasonably logged in and watched it happen, should they be accountable for not stopping it?
For fuck's sake...
Sometimes I think Google would do a better job running this country than the fucktards we elect. Do your fucking job for once, government.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
It's not about Google indexing them, it's about Google advertising them (to clarify, within the advertised results). You aren't really allowed to carry illegal advertisements in newspapers either.
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.
However, operating a pharmacy and advertising it are not illegal. I could see that argument if the ad was "Come buy cocaine to help soothe your toothe ache". However, its not.... if I put up an ad saying "Apartment for rent" but... the apartment is an illegal basement or has no fire escape.... would they be liable for advertising something illegal?
Why is the onus on an IT company to perform the job of a licensing board? They are not even in the healthcare industry! What part of their business, which is very very broad, is supposed to make them experts in the legalities of every industry that they interact with?
I think this is a ridiculously high standard.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
No, it's not unreasonable because they are profiting from it. Google has a wide range of keywords and other security measurements in place to ensure someone isn't frauding them. Hell, it's their core business - they need to secure it, and they have. Google does manual reviews for advertisements already, especially if it's from certain category or triggered by the keyword advertiser wants to advertise for. But Google made so much money (billions) from such advertisements that they tried to avoid that responsibility and go with "but we are trying!" line. It's not that hard to do. Google has all that info and algorithms already - they just decided to take a risk. I guess it payed off too, since they made billions in profit but only had to pay $500 million.
Yes but murder for hire is clearly illegal. What if you advertised for pest extermination (insect murder for hire), which is legal.. should google know that your area requires such businesses to have special licenses? Should they be experts on the requirements in every state (US and foreign) and its requirements for the business at hand? Should they be in charge of policing whether YOU may legally perform a task vs anyone else? In how many industries is it feasible or should it be required, for them to retain experts in to make these determinations?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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,
Oh yeah? Well, according to their own annual report:
We generate revenue primarily by delivering relevant, cost-effective online advertising. Businesses use our AdWords program to promote their products and services with targeted advertising. In addition, the third parties that comprise the Google Network use our AdSense program to deliver relevant ads that generate revenue and enhance the user experience.
And in the financial details, they reveal that in 2010 they had $28.2B revenue from advertising, and $1B revenue from all other sources. You would think that an 'IT' company would have most of it's income from IT things, wouldn't you? Saying Google is an IT company is like saying Ford is a 'metal and plastic shaping' company.
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.
It's correct in terms of Google's business model. They make the majority of their money from online advertising. Their use of online technology is simply the means.
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?