Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by hubie on Thursday June 01 2023, @08:42AM   Printer-friendly
from the cutting-into-that-$15B-quarterly-net-profit dept.

Google settles location tracking lawsuit for $39.9M:

In brief Google has settled another location tracking lawsuit, yet again being fined a relative pittance.

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson's office announced the $39.9 million fine last week, along with news that Google will have to implement several state-ordered tracking reforms that clarify what data is being gathered and for what purposes.

"Today's resolution holds one of the most powerful corporations accountable for its unethical and unlawful tactics," Ferguson said in a statement.

The lawsuit is similar to others filed across the country last year, with attorneys general in Indiana, Texas and Washington, DC joining Washington state in suing Google over claims it used "dark patterns" to trick users into allowing location tracking and data collection, while also making it difficult to opt out.

[...] While it's true that Washington state earned itself considerably more than DC or Indiana, it's worth noting, as we so often have to do at El Reg, that even a $40m settlement is unlikely to make Alphabet accountants take pause.

In Q1 of this year, Google's parent company announced [PDF] it had made $15.05 billion in net profit.

Ferguson's office said it intends to use its Google fine to continue enforcing the Consumer Protection Act. Its enforcement body, the Consumer Protection Division, receives minimal cash from the government and is largely funded by recoveries in cases like this one.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday June 01 2023, @08:49AM (5 children)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Thursday June 01 2023, @08:49AM (#1309185)

    When you scold a child who doesn't give a crap and only pretends to be sorry, he'll re-offend as soon as he thinks nobody's watching.

    The child needs a good spanking - one that will make him afraid to get another good spanking.

    In the case of gigantic untouchable monopolies, what will do the trick is:

    1/ If the company has already committed a certain type of crime and settled, the settlement option disappears
    2/ Fines that automatically doubles at each new new conviction for the same crime. This will quickly escalate to gigantic monopoly sized fines and make them think twice.
    3/ Hard time for the company officers. Make them personally responsible for the behavior of the company they head.

    But of course, none of that will ever happen, because none of our corrupt politicians will vote to pass laws that hurt the hands that feed them...

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2023, @08:14PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2023, @08:14PM (#1309306)

      Quit blaming the politicians. It's the voters that reward them with reelection for forty years

      • (Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday June 01 2023, @09:42PM (3 children)

        by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Thursday June 01 2023, @09:42PM (#1309327)

        Quit blaming the politicians. It's the voters that reward them with reelection for forty years

        That old canard...

        Quite blaming the voters when the only choice on offer in almost all elections - local and national - is the same ultrarich corrupt sumbitches, and when the corrupt media do their damndest to shun the few fresh new candidates from smaller parties with new ideas and no conflicts of interest and misinform the public to further their own profits.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2023, @09:52PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2023, @09:52PM (#1309328)

          Quite[sic] blaming the voters when the only choice on offer in almost all elections

          That's bullshit, they just have to be more active and engaged during the primaries. The voters are the ones doing the limiting by taking whatever mass media puts in front of them. They have to seek out better if they want better choices. Stop playing the victim card

        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday June 01 2023, @10:31PM (1 child)

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01 2023, @10:31PM (#1309337)
          I think the answer is somewhere in the middle of your positions. I'll put it this way- Why didn't Ted Cruz face a recall election when he hauled ass to Cancun during a state-wide emergency?
          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2023, @02:51AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2023, @02:51AM (#1309377)

            Why didn't Ted Cruz face a recall election when he hauled ass to Cancun during a state-wide emergency?

            Insufficient demand from the voters, he's still popular amongst them. Chances are he will win again next year. Can't blame him for that

  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 01 2023, @11:32AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01 2023, @11:32AM (#1309207) Journal

    If each of the 50 states imposed penalties of tens of millions of dollars, and the feds imposed penalties in the hundreds of millions, Google would definitely take notice. And, if they failed to mend their ways, a second round of penalties an order of magnitude larger would definitely do the trick.

    The thing is, all of the states need to get on board with bringing Big Tech under control, and the federal government needs to go right along with the states.

    We are in this position because government fails to govern. Most representatives are too busy trying to make their own fortunes at taxpayer's expense. Lobbyists know that, which is why they throw money around in the capitols.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Opportunist on Thursday June 01 2023, @03:54PM (6 children)

    by Opportunist (5545) on Thursday June 01 2023, @03:54PM (#1309256)

    When I was in the US the last time, I noticed that speeding tickets run in the 200ish area (yeah, it's been a while) and I wondered if that's even a deterrent for someone who makes a couple 100k a year. It sure is for someone baking barely 40k, hell, it could well be crippling for them.

    I prefer our system: You pay depending on your income. Pretty much any fine is given as a fraction of your annual income. And if you don't provide proof of what you earn, they'll simply go ahead and guesstimate what you should be doing considering your line of work (and rest assured, they slap on a bit just for good measure).

    Same applies for companies, you might have heard about fines running in the billions for corporations like Facebook [theguardian.com]. Of course this immediately sparked the "oh how could they, the evil EU and its anti-American fines".

    You prefer if they pay little enough that it's considered part of the operation cost? Because that's what this is. If the fine doesn't even come close to costing more than what violating the law gets them, there is ZERO incentive to not break the law. If I can rake in 1000s of bucks breaking a law and pay a 100 dollar fine if, and only if, I get caught, where is my incentive to heed the law?

    • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 01 2023, @06:54PM (2 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01 2023, @06:54PM (#1309284) Journal

      speeding tickets run in the 200ish area (yeah, it's been a while)

      When I started driving truck, fines were $53 for speeding, almost everywhere. For a long time, I considered that a cost of doing business. Then they started jacking those fines up, first one state, then another. Before that, I only worried about the points on my license. When the fines went over $150, I was forced to take notice. My solution? Get a better radar detector.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2023, @07:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2023, @07:04PM (#1309288)

        Somehow I'm not surprised that it would be runaway1956 who responds to a nudge of "this activity is illegal and we're enforcing it" with "let me find a way to enable me to continue breaking the law".
        Next time you argue for 'law and order' or any of its variants, you should bring this particular doozy up again.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Opportunist on Thursday June 01 2023, @07:22PM

        by Opportunist (5545) on Thursday June 01 2023, @07:22PM (#1309295)

        Fine by me, considering the general idea behind the fines is to make sure people drive safely. I doubt you'll be a lot of trouble driving 100 on an empty highway in the middle of nowhere. Now, driving through afternoon traffic near a large city, that's another thing, and this is also where those radars should be used.

    • (Score: 2) by Ox0000 on Thursday June 01 2023, @07:02PM

      by Ox0000 (5111) on Thursday June 01 2023, @07:02PM (#1309287)

      To "yes, and" you: this whole "cost of doing business" could also be tackled by tacking onto the fine a "and any gross gains from this illegal practice for the duration thereof is now forfeited". This means that the fine would become an actual cutting into the money of the company, rather than cutting into the money of the activity. That would make this "cost of doing business" be an actual cost.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 01 2023, @08:53PM (1 child)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01 2023, @08:53PM (#1309319) Journal

      You do realize, don't you, that according to the article headline, Google had to pay just under $40 MILLION dollars.

      For a company that makes BILLIONS of dollars, a mere forty million is chump change.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(1)