Justice Department: To Protect Pharma Profits, We'll Just Take Money From Google
from the it's-enough-to-drive-someone-to-drugs... dept
So the big story of the day seems to be about the Justice Department getting Google to "forfeit" $500 million for having ads in the US for Canadian pharmacies. This isn't a huge surprise. News broke of the investigation a few months ago, when Google mentioned in an SEC filing that it had set aside $500 million to settle this particular matter. The Justice Department, in typical fashion, play up how they're protecting Americans from harm blah, blah, blah.Here's the thing: I can't figure out how this makes any sense at all. First off, why is Google to blame? As we've discussed repeatedly, the US is pretty clear on its liability laws that liability should be applied to the party actually responsible, not third party platforms. Google accepted ads. That should not make it responsible for the content in those ads, let alone transactions that may occur because of those ads. Even worse, Google clearly made quite an effort to make sure such ads only involved legit drugs:
Google changed its policy on pharmacy ads in February 2010, so that it would only take ads from U.S. pharmacies accredited by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, and from online pharmacies in Canada that are accredited by the Canadian International Pharmacy Association.So, now, as a media property that has advertising, do I need to fear that the Justice Department can force me to forfeit money because one of you clicks on an ad and makes a transaction that the government thinks is illegal? That's insane!
On top of this, it's even more ridiculous, because the US government has almost always turned a blind eye to grey market imports of drugs from Canadian pharmacies, because they know that without such affordable drugs, people will die. Here we have the Justice Department not helping to save lives, but helping to kill people off by making it that much more difficult to get approved drugs from Canada at more reasonable prices. In fact, amusingly, Senator Patrick Leahy is pushing legislation that will expand the ability of Americans to import such drugs (at the same time he's sponsoring the PROTECT IP Act, which wold force such sites off the internet -- he's not particularly consistent, that Senator Leahy).
Let's face facts here. This has absolutely nothing to do with public safety. This is a cynical move by the Obama administration to ensure support from the pharma industry. Early on in his administration, President Obama specifically supported allowing re-importation from Canadian pharmacies. In fact, the White House has repeatedly said that it's completely in favor of allowing such reimportation.
And yet now it takes $500 million from Google not for actually doing that, but for allowing ads to appear that promote a program the administration has officially endorsed? It's hard not to take the cynical view and simply see this as the US government taking from Google in an effort to make the US pharma industry (who hate, hate, hate Canadian imports) happy.
In the meantime, as Ryan Singel points out, Google is getting dinged $500 million here, while Goldman Sachs got dinged $550 million for "melting the economy." I guess Wall Street and pharma have much better lobbyists than Google.
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: canadian pharmacies, drugs, forfeiture, grey imports, justice department, pharmaceuticals, reimportation
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
liability
By the way, any guys out there want to add two inches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: liability
No thanks, I'm tall enough. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Punish success, reward failure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Punish success, reward failure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Punish success, reward failure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Punish success, reward failure
THANK YOU. I wish more people understood this.
Everyone is aware that our politicians are crooks that funnel our money to big business through regulatory capture schemes and corporate handouts, and yet they expect that given power over the internet for "net neutrality" purposes, the politicians will suddenly start working for the benefit of the people. It's like some form of mass delusion.
"But . . . but . . . it has the word neutrality in it! Next you'll tell me that the patriot act didn't secure our freedoms like they claimed!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Punish success, reward failure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not my understanding from reading the NYT article.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/google-reaches-500-million-settlement-with-gove rnment/
"Since 2010, after Google became aware of the investigation, it has required that all Canadian online pharmacy advertisers be certified by the Canadian International Pharmacy Association and has specified that they can advertise only to Canadian customers."
and from an earlier NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/technology/14google.html
"Until early 2010, Google required that all online pharmacies be verified by PharmacyChecker.com, which says it checks the credentials of online pharmacies. But many of the rogue pharmacies that advertised on Google during that period never applied to PharmacyChecker.com, according to Gabriel Levitt, vice president of the verification site."
My impression from this is that Google is being penalized for allowing such ads before February 2010 and that they were rather lax about checking. What surprises me the most is that Google doesn't appear to be fighting this judgement, in particular the high amount, very hard. $500 million is not chump change even for them. Instead, they seem to be trying to minimize publicity about it
Please don't read into my comment any support for the administration's pursuit of this case. I am just pointing out that Google was not exercising due diligence in accepting ads before February 2010.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google made the mistake of creating a limitation, but allow Canadian companies to still market to the US in pharma.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That part I bolded? How the hell do you know that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The problem, as we see it, is that Google did not enforce its own standard very well, which was to limit ads to online pharmacies approved by PharmacyChecker.com, which included licensed pharmacies in Canada. As this article makes clear the pharmaceutical and U.S. pharmacy industries are trying to conflate rogue pharmacy sites with reputable Canadian-based online pharmacies that help Americans afford medication.
So, in 2010, not only did Google take far more extensive actions to actually block rogue online pharmacies but it adopted a U.S.-only standard with NABP/VIPPS, banning safe Canadian sites from advertising in the U.S., essentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Gabriel Levitt
Vice President
PharmacyChecker.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the point is, why should they have to exercise any due diligence?
Can I sue NewsChannel4 because I get scammed by a car dealer advertising there - or is the fault with the car dealer? Did hundreds of magazines and newspapers get sued because they ran ads from the tobacco companies before all those warnings had to be placed - or was the fault with the tobacco companies who knew their product was killing people?
Apply proper liability to the truly guilty parties, not the company that provides tools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Jesus was a socialist !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, if the car dealer said the car had breaks and it didn't or something like that. Or if he claimed it had airbags and it didn't. Cars can be very dangerous devices. and if it's some used, beat up car, who knows. There are all sorts of scam artists out there eager to make a buck, even if they have to lie about the safety of the car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely, if the condition of the car was not as advertised. You also left out his other example, but I guess it's not hard to see why.
"OK so do people die when they smoke cigarettes, or . . . wait. Um, I guess I can just use the weaker car dealer example instead and ignore the one that obviously disproves my point because I'm an intellectually dishonest hack!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/21/google_was_repeatedly_warned_over_illegal_drug_ads/
I am not saying I agree with U.S. law which bans ordering legitimate drugs from Canada, even with a prescription. I don't! Google was clearly aware and taking a risk in continuing to accept ads. Were they being altruistic in enabling U.S. citizens to easily find cheaper alternatives to buying expensive prescription drugs in the U.S. or were they being greedy, gambling that the U.S. would not initiate a case while they were making lots of money from Adwords from Canadian pharmacies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That may change in the future but Google is not known for its appetite for litigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now if only they'd prosecute Google for anti-trust.
The one thing that's highly likely is has little to do with stated reason... if Google thought itself innocent, then should have fought, so they caved in for some reason other than the cost of fighting, which would be minor; could have stretched it out for years before having to cough up.
But, even if my notions are wrong: Google is now convicted, so don't tell me they're aboveboard and pure of motive. (I can guess you can object to "convicted", probably one of those mere fines not admitting guilt deals, which should be illegal in themselves.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now if only they'd prosecute Google for anti-trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now if only they'd prosecute Google for anti-trust.
Err, being convicted of a crime now means you're immoral? In what universe do you live?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Collateral Damage
The state of Utah has actually created an online pharmacy board within their Department of Professional Licensing to regulate the practice of medicine online, though the NABA does not acknowledge this licensure or certify those licensed by the state of Utah. The result is a new, efficient and innovative industry is being trampled by a group of competitors that are masquerading as a regulatory agency to protect their vested interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Collateral Damage
If Google ran ads for crack cocaine, with links to dealers sites and cell phone numbers, would they be somewhat liable?
Think before you answer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Collateral Damage
Is not in the records supreme court judges stating that "it would be dangerous for the government to suppress any form of speech based on no actual harm besides the mere fact that people don't like what others have said"?
People don't need to like it, but others can put up ads about drugs defending those things if they want too and even tell others where they can buy it legally and that includes cocaine, crack, meta-amphetamines and so forth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Collateral Damage
Are politicians willing to cause irreparable harm to society just because they can?
I find the idea abhorrent to say the least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Collateral Damage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_involving_the_F irst_Amendment#Commercial_speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Collateral Damage
You can say you love illegal drugs all you want, you just can't sell it or earn money from people who sell it.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer
and Google already admitted that with hindsight they should not have done it, so I can't see what people like Mike are bitching about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Collateral Damage
It doesn't matter if it's pharma or crack, Google's "crack" team of lawyers should have caught onto it. Considering they took the time to block out every other country, you would think that maybe they just made a mistake and failed to do due diligence, which is likely why Google is paying up without a blink here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Collateral Damage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Collateral Damage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fight fire with fire.
Heck, we read story after story about all sorts of "taxes on innovation" levied against Google and other companies by all sorts of members of the old guard. Well, some of these tech companies happen to have a bunch of cash at hand, and they don't seem to be spending nearly as much of it lobbying as, say, the recording industry, which wouldn't be able to match them dollar for dollar.
Is it the "Do no evil" thing? Is it an inherent disgust for having to pay politicians to be able to make money as opposed to having the best product out there? I can certainly understand that disgust, since the mere idea would seem appalling to me (why should I have to do that? And how is it even moral?). But, hey, 500M is not chump change. And it accumulates.
I'd see it as the least of all evils. They could easily convince themselves that they'd be fighting a crusade that'll make everybody better off.
Pharma pressing on you? Spend 500M on politicians instead of just giving it away, see how that works. Recording industry wants to break the internet? 200M should fix that. Patent system is broken? Pay 12.5B for some patents with some production on the side? Hell no! A tenth of that will probably buy you either of the 2 political parties. Just take your pick.
Of course, we'll have to start worrying about what to do when Google and co. start getting too comfy owning the government, but they did promise to not be evil! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish I could commit crimes, just give money back when caught and have idiots defend me
It sounds like a great deal to Google just to have to give the money back when caught. A criminal case would have cost them triple damages and criminal penalties.
Who know how much fake drugs were advertised on Google.
I, Google, and Mike may not agree with the current medical system, but if you don't want to obey the rule of law, feel free to move to a lawless country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wish I could commit crimes, just give money back when caught and have idiots defend me
The solution for fake drugs and pharmacies that hide their illegal activity should not be on Google as their is a simple solution already in place. You can call a number to confirm the legitimacy of a pharmacy either in Canada or the U.S.. That should be a required step for anyone to buy drugs on-line. Even if you don't have a prescription you would be crazy not to make sure your source was reliable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wish I could commit crimes, just give money back when caught and have idiots defend me
False. The pharmacies did the advertising. Google did not. That's the whole problem with people assigning blame to a service provider. Google is not the one who did the advertising, it just provided the platform. That's why this creates such a massive chilling effect for service providers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wish I could commit crimes, just give money back when caught and have idiots defend me
False. The pharmacies did the advertising. Google did not. That's the whole problem with people assigning blame to a service provider. Google is not the one who did the advertising,...."
I don't think the Google Boys are as smart as they they think they are, but one would have to be even dumber than Mike to take HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS and not know the money is dirty.
And we still don't know if the money is $200, 300, 400, 500, 600 MILLION or more and if Google even paid a penalty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wish I could commit crimes, just give money back when caught and have idiots defend me
Approaching my 73rd birthday, I note that the U.S. has plenty of problems, but until we get past stridency, there's not much that can be done to reduce the problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wish I could commit crimes, just give money back when caught and have idiots defend me
I don't think I ever asked anyone to love the USA or lave it, but I get your point.
The point I was making is that you you want to live in a place (hell-hole) without the rule of law, it's always an option, which only someone dumber than Mike would do.
But I think we agree, is that what you don't do is decide you just don't obey the laws you don't like, like pirates or
Google, who already admitted they were wrong.
If you want to argue, that it would be a chilling-effect on "service providers" to not sell guns to the insane, to not serve drinks to people already drunk, or not sell millions of dollars of ads to criminals, be my guest. Just don't break the law on your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I wish I could commit crimes, just give money back when caught and have idiots defend me
Most people do. Everyday.
Jaywalking, speeding, failure to signal, breaking contracts...looking at my screen right now, I see I have reproduced copyrighted work on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704083904576335483063623402.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yikes. That makes this even worse. It shows how much Google did (above and beyond what the law requires) to filter out such ads. Some still got through and now they have to pay? Crazy. This is a ridiculous attack by the DOJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dying people are good for the economy
I was listening to NPR as I am prone to do while I drive around for work. One day they were discussing how the tobacco companies were being forced to couch their arguments to the public. At one point the primary argument being used to sooth ruffled feathers was that while smoking causes no end of harmful effects to the smokers. The resultant health problems and the eventual death of the individual from smoking was....frankly....good for the economy. So here I saw the sentence I quoted above and noticed the gov't is doing the same thing with proscription drugs.
ITS A CONSPIRACY, meh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now if they only had a business model for POT
Anyway, all this means it Canadian pharmacies will move to SEO.
Google is an admirable company. Usually when someone challenges Google, I guess something is wrong --- like the status quo and the political lobby has been crossed.
The only reason Pot is illegal in the USA is because the pharma and medical industry vultures cannot figure out a business model where they make all the money. It's too hard to compete with a bunch of cheap hippies growing hearty weeds on federal parklands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]