Why Should Google, Microsoft & Yahoo Have To Pay Fines For Casino Advertising?
from the makes-no-sense dept
The pointless US campaign against online gambling has snared another bunch of innocent victims. A few years back, the DOJ started a new program: rather than trying to stop online gambling directly (since all were operating outside of the US), it would simply go after websites that ran ads from casinos. The problem is that this would appear to be a free speech violation. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped the folks in the Justice Department from applying pressure to companies -- and it looks like the three big search engines have caved. Google, Yahoo and Microsoft have agreed to pay a combined $31.5 million for running ads from gambling sites in the past (the fines are to be paid as a mixture of cash, donations to charity and public service announcements). The companies aren't admitting guilt -- which seems reasonable because they're not guilty of anything. None of these companies was involved in illegal online gambling. None of these companies even embraced or endorsed illegal online gambling. As platform providers for ads, they simply allowed others to buy ads on their sites for online gambling sites. There shouldn't be any liability directly on those search engines -- but it's tough to fight the US gov't, and since the amounts are relatively small, it's not a huge surprise that the companies settled. It is unfortunate, though. No matter whether you are for or against online gambling, there's simply no reason to go after the search engines. If the ads themselves were illegal, go after those who bought the ads.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ads, doj, gambling, liability, search engines
Companies: google, microsoft, yahoo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Surprise
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Surprise
After that, real-estate is starting to look nice in the Great White North is becoming tempting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chump Change
But it seems like the combined $31.5m would be a drop in a bucket to these companies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Chump Change
It's chump change to you so you will have no problem doing this for the rest of my life, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Surprise
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technically they did break the law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technically the US breaks international law... @sw
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Chump Change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Old Crappy Laws
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gambling
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re #2 Tim
Good use of the "" around elected.
Very accurate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gambling
And not one of these guys who is so hysterically afraid of the idea that Americans might gamble online has yet to explain why I can’t play poker on my computer and I need the government to protect me from its evils but I can spend a week in Vegas playing poker and throwing my money down the sinkhole or walk down the street and buy a lottery ticket-- and that's all perfectly legal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from corruption and fraud.
Any corporation that willfully enables illegal fraudulent activity designed to harm or bamboozle the public should be prosecuted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You've hit on the real and only reason for the government's zeal against online gambling. Just like the old mafia godfathers, the U.S. government is not getting its cut and if it can't have a cut of the action, then it stamps out the action altogether. That and online gambling competes with the big casinos in Vegas and Atlantic City, all of whom pay handsomely to have their interests protected by the politicians who are supposed to represent the people.
As for online gambling praying on addicts, so what? People are grown adults and should be allowed to make their own decisions in life. I personally don't need or want some bureaucrat in Washington taking on a self-appointed nanny role my life to protect me from myself.
And if they were really worried about gambling addicts, they'd outlaw gambling EVERYWHERE, including Nevada, Atlantic City and all state-run lotteries. But the reality is they couldn't give tinker's damn about addicts, so long as they get their cut. They just use that as a more palatable excuse to ban and regulate what they can't profit from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
prays on addicts
unlike all the casinos that are on American soil? Unlike the lottery Powerball and all those scratch thingies (I've seen people who make minimal wage or are on welfare spend "fortunes" on those)
is corrupt
right, unlike everyone involved in the domestic gambling industry, they are all on the straight and narrow no doubt
odds manipulation
some proof of that might be nice, otherwise it's kinda a really convenient unsubstantiated claim, isn't it? But let's assume it is true...the cause of action should be to convince the governments of the countries that host those manipulating sites (and/or where the companies behind them are located) to step up to the plate to eliminate such shenanigans
does not pay taxes
again, I seriously doubt that, so put up or shut up...show some proof that these sites do not pay taxes in the countries they are located in.
The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from corruption and fraud.
sounds like a good slogan, however it has little to do with anything in this discussion...hell, even 2 of your 4 "why online gambling should be stopped" reasons has nothing to do with possibly protecting citizens from corruption and fraud
Any corporation that willfully enables illegal fraudulent activity designed to harm or bamboozle the public should be prosecuted.
another true statement, it would somebody an accessory...but good luck proving/convincing anybody that by showing ads, they are "enabling" anything...
while you're on that path, shouldn't search engines return 0 search results when somebody wants to a search for "online gambling"? After all, by clicking the link(s) from the results, they'll find the online gambling site(s)...
And while you're at it, shouldn't they also not show any results on how to make bombs, drugs,... surely showing those results enables a user to engage in "illegal...activity to harm...the public"
And now for a bit of truth: the only reason the US government is banning online gambling and trying all these retarded strategies is for one and one reason only: because it doesn't get its (tax)cut
go shill yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
As far as I can tell, even by trying to read between the lines of my own post, I included no commentary whatsoever about the validity of the not getting your cut motivation. Unless you want to interpret "retarded strategies" that way. However that would be a stretch, the level of intelligence and/or common sense invoked by a particular practical strategy does not reflect in any way on the validity of ones initial motivation.
But since you breached the subject, let me ponder over it for a second... sure, I agree that a government not getting its cut is a valid reason for said government to act upon it and eliminate the "injustice".
One would think the first cause of action ought to be finding a way to get its cut after all. And prohibition should be kept as a last resort (actually, not even as that, because after all, if there's a demand, there will be a supply, no matter what you try to prevent it, the war on drugs, the prohibition on alcohol, to name but a few examples, should have made that painfully clear)
But I digress although I thought it worth pointing out. As for the core question...does the (US) government deserve a cut? Although analogies often are quite flawed or simply do not apply, I am going to use one: if a US citizen would go on vacation to Antigua and while being there, frequent a casino and gamble, the US government would (rightfully so) not receive a cut, I hope you at least admit/agree to that. Well, the online gambling is pretty much the same difference, so in the end, I don't see how the US government would have any legitimate claim to any cut
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
> them to prohibit something.
Not in anything resembling a free society, it isn't.
My freedom isn't contingent on the government's ability to tax it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Surprise RE:
[ link to this | view in thread ]