Google fined $500 million by feds

[Archangel]

Google agreed to forfeit $500 million for helping online Canadian pharmacies to reach American consumers by letting the drug companies place advertisements through its AdWords programs, the Justice Department announced Wednesday.

The $500 million settlement with DOJ is one of the largest forfeiture penalties ever in the United States, the department said. Google acknowledged as part of the deal that it “improperly assisted Canadian online pharmacy advertisers to run advertisements that targeted the United States through AdWords.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61989.html

 

[HostMantis]

$500 million???? That's just insane!

 

[imadam]

Wow! $500 Million is indeed insane even for a company like Google who turn over $30 Billion a year. I guess the feds are trying to set an example to the rest of the industry with this large fine.

 

[dna]

We are governed by thieves who will steal money anyway they can.
And they obviously know where the money is.
I guess this gives the Obama administration another half a billion
to send to Pakistan.

 

[DU]

Wow! $500 Million is indeed insane even for a company like Google who turn over $30 Billion a year. I guess the feds are trying to set an example to the rest of the industry with this large fine.

The $500 million fine reflects Google’s gross revenue made from advertising Canadian pharmacies placed with AdWords, plus the gross revenue made by the pharmacies through U.S. sales.

In other words - they were fined all monies that COULD have come from the ads for illegal services.

Allowing Canadian adwords ads for US Audience is no different than allowing ads for Crack Cocaine dealers.

 

[Archangel]

With a giant like Google, $500mil shouldn't hurt too terribly much.

 

[interestedenough]

I wonder how many would have died in the US if they had to buy the drugs at 5X to 10X the price from US pharmacies. The exact same drugs that is.

 

[DU]

I wonder how many would have died in the US if they had to buy the drugs at 5X to 10X the price from US pharmacies. The exact same drugs that is.

Are they the exact same drugs?

What is 0%?

The trust I have for Indian companies selling drugs through Canadian shell companies.

 

[interestedenough]

Yeah you are completely right, I thought about this after I wrote my post. Many of the "Canadian" drug companies are actually Indian companies with Canadian proxies.

However, I know a bit about the pharma industry here in the US, and can tell you that the "API"=Active Product Ingredient of many drugs comes from manufacturers in India. US pharmaceuticals however have VERY high standards enforced by the FDA. The FDA does its work well, they nag the hell out of the pharmaceuticals to do things well. Some pharmaceuticals (here in the US) however got around the FDA requirements by using Contract Manufacturing. They contract other companies within the US to do the drugs for them, and then turn away. Contract manufacturers many times (not all are bad) do a poorer job because they care mostly about the money. But, these "cost savings" ultimately come back to hunt the pharmaceutical company.

So yeah, even though the FDA nags US pharmaceuticals they sometimes do a bad job, I imagine in countries with less requirements, more things get the blind eye.

However, drugs that truly come from Canada have as good of chances for decent quality as drugs that come from the US. Many of the Canadian and US drugs have active ingredients that come from India and other Asian countries anyways too.

Are they the exact same drugs?

What is 0%?

The trust I have for Indian companies selling drugs through Canadian shell companies.

 

[alien51]

The DOJ busted them for "Invalid Income". The invalid clicks police getting a taste of its own medicine. How the tables have turned. lol

 

[axus_auto]

Is the $500m returned to Adwords advertisers or what ...

 

[alien51]

Any income obtained from illegal sales, gets forfeited in favor of the State (perhaps in the form of penalties, as the news article has mentioned).

 

[dna]

Google didn't get any income due to illegal sales.
Google sold ads that provided information to people
who couldn't afford the high prices of medicine
in the United States. Google had a First Admendment
right to provide that information. A couple of years
ago politicians were encouraging poor people to buy
drugs from Canada. Where will poor people find afordable
medicines now?

 

[Archangel]

Could you clarify this, please?

Google had a First Admendment
right to provide that information.

 

[alien51]

Google didn't get any income due to illegal sales. Google sold ads that provided information to people who couldn't afford the high prices of medicine in the United States.

However, you left out this portion of the news article which says:

it was illegal for pharmacies to ship controlled and non-controlled prescription drugs into the United States from Canada.”

So in effect, you have Google "selling" information to consumers on how to purchase drugs from Canada into the US--- which is an illegal act.

That would be like paying me to give you info on where to buy cocaine or counterfeit DVDs.

And Google did not provide the information for free. They profited from it.

The "humanitarian" spirit of helping people buy cheap medicine, is irrelevant. Because if you try to feed starving children in Somalia through money laundering-- that would make the humanitarian act, illegal as well.

A couple of years ago politicians were encouraging poor people to buy drugs from Canada. Where will poor people find afordable
medicines now?

I'm not sure if the US Government placed certain "controls" on how to purchase cheap medicines outside the US since then.

Perhaps things have changed. But the bottomline is, what could be legal before, can be illegal now depending on current regulations.

 

[DU]

And Google did not provide the information for free. They profited from it.

The issue is that they did it INTENDING to profit which is ADVOCATING illegal activity.


From
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=395&invol=444

"Constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

That is why you can have ads for escort services ... but not contract for killing or prostitution.

---------- Post added at 07:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:57 PM ----------

The "humanitarian" spirit of helping people buy cheap medicine, is irrelevant. Because if you try to feed starving children in Somalia through money laundering-- that would make the humanitarian act, illegal as well.

Just discussing it isn't a problem. Providing a step by step instruction kid might not be a problem (skating on thin ice?)... Telling people it's a good idea and giving step by step IS a problem.

That's why you can have High Time magazine which discusses marijuana use without actually telling you where and how to buy illegal marijuana. (I think)

 

[Weber]

What tha? Even local police are getting a share of the payoff.
Sounds like how they do it in old Mexico.

 

[Domainace]

This is a shakedown. There's an election coming, and the government is short of cash. I am no friend of Google, but it's pretty obvious what's going on - they have to play ball with the administration and they can avoid future problems like this.

Note that this was a settlement, not an open court case. Same thing with BP, a massive payoff to the government and nothing for the actual people affected.

 

[alien51]

The issue is that they did it INTENDING to profit which is ADVOCATING illegal activity.

From the way i understood it from the point of view of Google, it was an act of NEGLIGENCE on their part. Not exactly intentional, or advocating.

There's a lot of automated stuffs going on with Adwords, just like their Adsense. Some bad stuffs might escape the filters.

But Google has also been accused of turning a blind eye before. For example, the Google Ranking issue. They were accused of not punishing popular websites who are gaming their algos, in the premise that these sites were driving huge revenue to their coffers. They only started punishing when some journalists made a fuzz about it.

Just discussing it isn't a problem. Providing a step by step instruction kid might not be a problem (skating on thin ice?)... Telling people it's a good idea and giving step by step IS a problem.

I don't think Free Speech qualifies in the context of this Google issue. Because money changed hands. The central point here, is the ADVERTISING. And this was not free advertising or public service ads. "Selling" ads, is internet commerce. And internet commerce is regulated, and not free speech defined by First Amendment rights.

And free speech, is not exactly free if you got paid for doing it.

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ----------

Note that this was a settlement, not an open court case.

Possibly because Google had no intentions of challenging the facts presented to them.

Just like Michael Jackson's child molestation charges in the past, ended in a settlement.

 

[dna]

The First Admendment:

"Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech...."

What is it that you don't understand?
Do you understand what "no law" means?
Where does it say that you lose your freedom of speech when money is involved?
This is the first law of the peoples Bill of Rights.
These are rights that the government has no right to touch.
And the people who are trying to take the Bill of Rights from us are Nazies.
Are you a Nazi?