[HN Gopher] Google to pay $60M for misleading representations
___________________________________________________________________
Google to pay $60M for misleading representations
Author : lysp
Score : 172 points
Date : 2022-08-12 08:53 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.accc.gov.au)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.accc.gov.au)
| netzego wrote:
| This "[...] sends a strong message to [other] digital platforms
| [...]" that it is not possible to compete with any FAANG at these
| shady business battlefields. But these so called "penalties" just
| solidify these monopolies by raising the bar too high for
| everybody else but them. Virtue signalling at it's best.
| squarefoot wrote:
| $60M seems a lot to normal people, but what if Google earned say
| $61M with that practice, therefore they were aware it would turn
| as a gain for them? I mean, the penalty should be of course
| proportional to the offense, but prosecutors should also
| calculate in some way the benefits so the penalty works as a
| serious deterrent in the future. Also, part of the fee should be
| compensation for the users involved, even if that would be a few
| bucks, as it's important they're made aware that they were lied
| to and how, so they can develop more resistance to false
| advertising or mistreatment of their personal data in the future.
| zulban wrote:
| Indeed. And even if they only earned $6.1M doing this, if they
| did something similar ten times but were only caught once then
| it's still worth it.
| harles wrote:
| In this particular case it's estimated that 1.3m people viewed
| the screen. A fine of ~$60 / user seems pretty hefty and a good
| deterrent.
| peyton wrote:
| Instead of more rules and bigger penalties on the books, what
| if the ad company and the phone company were separated? Then
| other phone companies could work with the ad company, while
| other ad companies could work with the phone company.
|
| Consumers would have more choice. I don't believe one big
| entity selling phones and ads carefully regulated by government
| officials will lead to desirable outcomes in the long term.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The Australian government lacks the authority to do that
| without putting a level of onerous restraint on trade on a
| foreign company that could get them in trouble with the WTO.
|
| The _United States_ government could, hypothetically, pass
| laws that recognize Google 's gestalt of overlapping
| businesses as a new kind of monopoly and break it up. If
| you're American, there are some candidates interested in this
| and they aren't too hard to find.
| exabrial wrote:
| $60M is "cost of doing business" for Google when they make
| something like $200B. Pocket change fines like encourage them to
| continue to break the law.
|
| Call me back when the fines hit 25% of revenue earned. Then we'll
| see some changes.
| bogomipz wrote:
| >""This significant penalty imposed by the Court today sends a
| strong message to digital platforms and other businesses, large
| and small, that they must not mislead consumers about how their
| data is being collected and used," ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb
| said"
|
| This is a company that made $257 billion last year.[1] How is
| that penalty significant exactly? It's practically a rounding
| error. How does Gina Cass-Gottlieb make that statement with a
| straight face? I almost think these folks are more interested in
| putting a check in the win category in order to feather their
| resume than they are in trying to meaningfully deter these
| companies from these practices.
|
| [1]
| https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/2021Q4_alphabet_earnings...
| senttoschool wrote:
| Australia has had a thing against Google.
|
| In Australia, News Corp (Rubert Murdoch) dominates the media
| landscape.[0] They have the power to dictate who wins elections
| and who loses. Thus, politicians bend to News Corp will.
|
| One of the results of this dynamic is that politicians forced
| Google to start paying News Corp to show news links in Google
| News in Australia but not anywhere else in the world.[1]
|
| [0] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-14/fact-file-rupert-
| murd...
|
| [1]https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/17/news-corp-
| agre...
| [deleted]
| nelox wrote:
| However, the last federal election was lost by the incumbent
| government, despite support for it by News Corp. That influence
| may be far greater over politicians themselves than over the
| electorate.
| grecy wrote:
| Whats more incredible is that inside Australia people genuinely
| think it's a good thing, because the Government is finally
| "taxing" Google... they actually believe the money is going to
| the Australian government (schools, hospitals and all that) and
| have no idea the money actually goes directly to Murdoch.
|
| Even when I explain it with evidence, they still come back with
| things like "it's about time Google paid their fair share,
| they've been skipping taxes for too long".
|
| It's utterly incredible what happens when you're on an island
| isolated from the world.
|
| (NOTE: I've been out of Australia for ~20 years and only
| recently came back, so it's kind of a shock to only get media
| from the inside)
| palmetieri2000 wrote:
| >(NOTE: I've been out of Australia for ~20 years and only
| recently came back, so it's kind of a shock to only get media
| from the inside)
|
| Stupidest thing I've ever heard. There is no 'from the
| inside' in Australia, what media could you possibly have
| accessed before that you cannot now? Even more, what media
| external to Australia provides a better or more accurate
| insight about Australia than the Australian media?
|
| Of course Murdoch's a prick, he always has been, he also does
| not have total control of the media in any way. To make a
| statement that implies there is some type of censorship or
| barrier between Aussies and access to the truth is a complete
| fabrication.
| stonith wrote:
| > Whats more incredible is that inside Australia people
| genuinely think it's a good thing, because the Government is
| finally "taxing" Google... they actually believe the money is
| going to the Australian government (schools, hospitals and
| all that) and have no idea the money actually goes directly
| to Murdoch.
|
| Every media outlet was shouting loudly in favor of it, even
| the Guardian. Zero integrity when the rubber hit the road.
| seydor wrote:
| Competition is good evidently
| defrost wrote:
| First link shows NewsCorp domination (~65%) in Capitol City
| print mnedia, not so much elsewhere.
|
| Second link is about the News Corp deal, but does mention that
| ALL Australian media will be compensated for "framing" by
| Google ("in google" summaries and snapshots of sites that don't
| generate traffic to actual site).
|
| To be honest, this is a fair ask for kickback to actual content
| creators .. local journalism, etc.
| stonith wrote:
| It's not a fair ask, because Google were also not allowed to
| simply withdraw from displaying news. The whole thing was a
| shakedown. Initial drafts didn't include the public
| broadcaster ABC or SBS and only benefited the commercial
| entities.
| defrost wrote:
| > Initial drafts didn't include the public broadcaster ABC
| or SBS and only benefited the commercial entities.
|
| What's the current state of play, can the ABC and SBS do
| deals with Google and Facebook to get a return on their
| content?
|
| Why yes, yes they can.
| urthor wrote:
| Interestingly, you're completely correct.
|
| However, the animosity runs deeper than Americans may imagine.
|
| News Corp Australia has built a ground up, from first
| principles, Ad Tech platform that competes directly with
| Google's.
|
| The number of, and proportional penetration, of its
| publications are such they've the critical mass capable of
| flouting the Google Ads duopoly.
|
| Fairly strong F500 equivalent engineering culture.
|
| They've recently announced an _incredulous_ financial
| performance for the legacy media section of their business.
|
| It has to be said Rupert Murdoch funded the whole ad tech build
| with cable sports money. Murdoch will give up on his Australian
| newspapers the day hell snows over.
|
| Still, the raw flow of ad dollars is quite remarkable.
|
| Undercutting Google is an (relative to the woes of legacy
| media) _immensely_ profitable business.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > Undercutting Google is an (relative to the woes of legacy
| media) immensely profitable business.
|
| Well, Google is immensely profitable, so this is not very
| surprising.
|
| What is interesting is that companies undercutting it are the
| exception, not the norm.
| woweoe wrote:
| It might be a good thing that Australia actually has a
| competitor in the field which is otherwise dominated by US
| tech giants. Though one has to ask why Murdoch gave up Sky
| and 20th Century.
| ehnto wrote:
| It's certainly true that Murdoch has an outsized influence in
| Australia, but I don't believe this particular incident is a
| case of Google versus Murdoch. I think this was a fairly clear
| case of Google violating Australia's very robust consumer
| protections. It's something Australia takes very seriously, and
| it's a big mistake to run afoul of the ACCC.
| drstewart wrote:
| >Murdoch has an outsized influence in Australia
|
| >Australia's very robust consumer protections. It's something
| Australia takes very seriously
|
| Quite the irony here
| ehnto wrote:
| Different systems at play, but I see what you're saying.
| The ACCC doesn't try to stop social influence.
| baazaa wrote:
| Look at the past record of the ACCC. When their media code
| ultimately just resulted in Google and Facebook paying
| Murdoch and 9, the commissioner said that was his plan all
| along.
|
| https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2021/03/17/alan-kohler-
| news-...
|
| _[Rod Sims] said last week: "It doesn't matter a toss what
| the money is paid for."
|
| At an on-the-record Q&A event in Melbourne last week, Mr Sims
| said: "For reasons of their own, Google and Facebook strongly
| don't want to pay for news on search and news feed. Fine. The
| news media companies don't care what the money is for. So I
| just think it's a perfect outcome."
|
| "But", I followed up, "this does nothing to address the
| dominance of Google and Facebook".
|
| "This is one problem at a time", Sims responded.
|
| "The problem we're addressing with the news media code is
| simply that we wanted to arrest the decline in money going to
| journalism. That's what the code is about - getting more
| money into journalism, and I personally think the money going
| into Seven and Nine, what's been publicly reported, which is
| north of $30 million, will make a big difference."
|
| When I pointed out that there is nothing in the code that
| makes the companies spend the money on journalism, rather
| than dividends or executive bonuses, he replied that "the
| world is watching what they do"._
|
| Q: What's the difference between a thug who threatens to
| break in your windows unless you pay up and Rod Sims?
|
| A: Rod Sims is paid three quarters of a million dollars a
| year by the taxpayer and has the gall to claim he's acting in
| the public interest.
|
| We shouldn't assume the ACCC are acting in good faith in this
| case because we know they haven't historically, instead
| waging an ideological campaign against tech companies.
| Kbelicius wrote:
| > Look at the past record of the ACCC.
|
| What does that have to do with this case?
| techdragon wrote:
| When it comes to Murdoch related things, I often think it's
| likely to be both, since Google can violate the law and the
| ACCC entirely appropriate to punish them, and it can be
| profitable for the Murdoch family to tip the scales in order
| to make life harder for Google in Australia, so when
| something like this comes up it's in their best interest to
| stoke the fire and make sure the public knows Google did
| something wrong, to encourage them to file the appropriate
| complaints, etc... and so what might have been a 25 million
| dollar problem for Google with $arbitrary ongoing compliance
| costs, becomes 50 million dollar problem with $arbitrary x
| 1.5 ongoing compliance costs.
| pilgrimfff wrote:
| Whatever Australia has against Google, there's no question that
| Google completely lied about location tracking being buried in
| the "Web and App Activity" setting.
|
| Washington DC, Washington state, Indiana, and Texas are suing
| Google for the exact same thing.
|
| In this case, Google is guilty as sin.
| Thorentis wrote:
| > have the power to dictate who wins elections
|
| I hope you're kidding. That power has belonged exclusively to
| Facebook, Google, et. al. for at least the past 8 years.
| jmprspret wrote:
| That is not correct for Australia. NewsCorp almost
| singlehandedly kept the liberal party in power for almost a
| decade. Their reign only recently is over thanks to Scott
| Morrison's stupidity and incompetence that was so great even
| NewsCorp couldn't cover his ass.
| Cipater wrote:
| Do you know anything about News Corp and Rupert Murdoch?
| newrotik wrote:
| I see a lot of complaints about this but find little
| information about what the actual problem is.
|
| The abc link referenced mentions that Murdoch's reach
| through physical newspapers is indeed outsized, but
| acknowledges that only ~11% of the population uses this as
| primary news source. There is nothing indicating anything
| resembling a monopoly in radio, TV, and most importantly
| digital.
|
| "The Australian" belongs to News Corp, but is generally
| considered a respectable outlet. Opinion pieces are clearly
| distinguishable, and they also welcome contributions by
| left wing politicians (Tanya Plibersek and Jim Chalmers are
| examples I remember seeing relatively recently).
| shakna wrote:
| > "The Australian" belongs to News Corp, but is generally
| considered a respectable outlet.
|
| The Australian? Respectable? Nah, I don't think so.
|
| They're right wing, obvious about it, and have had
| several outright false reports in the last few years. [0]
| They even run their own "Australian of the Year" award,
| with the same name as the actual award. Their editors
| call themselves right wing and conservative, and they've
| been accused by both the Greens and Labor of targeted
| harassment because of it.
|
| [0] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-australian/
| headsoup wrote:
| Unlike those left wing outlets that are nothing but
| beacons of honesty and decency, right?
|
| Or is it ok to have nuance on the left but not the right?
|
| Mediabiasfactcheck. Lol. Of course there are stringent
| guidelines as to what is specifically right wing, far-
| right wing, left wing and far-left wing... All this
| political tribalism is pathetic.
| newrotik wrote:
| It is a conservative leaning news outlet. You may not
| agree with the view point but that does not imply that it
| is not respectable.
| defrost wrote:
| Sure, Dennis Potter named his tumor 'Rupert' - there's a
| damning indictment going back to Murdoch on Fleet Street.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > Australia has had a thing against Google.
|
| Is there someone that doesn't?
| eitland wrote:
| Good.
|
| Still wait for Google to be punished for abusing it market
| position to push its browser in a much worse manner than
| Microsoft pushed IE back in the days.
|
| For those who are new to this game: Microsoft was basically
| punished for bundling a browser with their operating system.
|
| If that was punishable (and thankfully it was), what should we
| say about the worlds largest advertising company pushing their
| browser in ad spots so valuable that no others were ever allowed
| to touch them (the otherwise clean front page of Google)?
|
| And of course: with its current behavior, MS should of course be
| punished again for its abusive use of a dominant position when it
| tries to stop people from downloading other browsers and tries to
| prevent people from setting other browsers as default.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Microsoft was never "punished" in the US for bundling IE. They
| were given a slap on the wrist for forcing OEMs to pay for
| Windows licenses even when they shipped PCs without Windows.
|
| Do you notice that at no time before or after the DOJ case
| there was never a time that MS stopped bundling IE with
| Windows?
| bugfix wrote:
| Microsoft now is doing the same with Edge. If you want to
| change your default browser on Windows 11 you need to
| individually click and select it for every file
| extension/protocol.
| kenjackson wrote:
| I just tried this, there's a "make XYZ your default browser"
| button at the very top of the page, which changes the default
| for most of the relevant file extensions. Some, like MHT, it
| doesn't. Not sure why. But they have everything on one page,
| so for the extensions it missed, you can easily change.
|
| That seems about as simple as one could make it. Is your
| concern that it didn't change every extension to whichever
| browser you made the default?
| eitland wrote:
| I tried to mention it above, so yes, I absolutely agree.
| naet wrote:
| I always find it boggling that apple can require all browsers
| use webkit on ios... it seems so similar to some of the MS
| stuff you mention.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Maybe because nothing ever happened with the "MS Stuff".
| yakak wrote:
| Apple will keep their prices high enough to never be bound
| by anti-monopoly law. "Give something away" with
| advertising and you've got the problem that you want to
| collect whatever you can from each and every consumer.
| eitland wrote:
| For now it is actually a good thing.
|
| But it should probably be looked into the moment the Chrome
| monopoly is dealt with.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Why is Apple's arrangement a good thing and Google's a bad
| thing?
|
| This is the tricky bit about monopoly breaking... The lack
| of consistent legal philosophy on what constitutes
| "monopoly" can be a real problem for fair competition
| (which translates to more costs and worse product for
| everyone, as companies shadow-box law hypotheticals rather
| than just make good product).
| babypuncher wrote:
| Apple's arrangement is only a good thing in the context
| of Google's otherwise total domination of the browser
| market.
|
| Nobody is saying that Apple's behavior is overall good,
| just pointing out that Apple's bad behavior just so
| happens to be keeping someone else's bad behavior in
| check.
| eitland wrote:
| Note that I write "for now".
| naet wrote:
| I don't find effectively forcing Safari on users to be a
| good thing. Even if it takes some market share away from
| Chrome, it just makes a new platform specific monopoly, and
| arguably a worse one with less pressure to change.
|
| As a web developer iOS is the most infuriating platform at
| the moment for me. There are some random nonstandard
| features. Just this last month I had an issue with ios "low
| power mode" causing webkit to throttle all browser
| animation frame requests by half, with no way to override
| or even check if it is on. There are open complaints and
| issues about this going back years but nobody can change it
| without Apple's blessing, which they don't give, so it
| affects every browser on iOS with no recourse.
|
| I have had tons of iphone browser specific issues and I am
| pretty sure their platform monopoly is a big part of why
| they go ages without being addressed. If there was real
| competition on the ios browser market they might push each
| other to do better by comparison.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Why should you as a web developer be able to bypass
| settings that keep the client's phone from running out of
| battery life?
| babypuncher wrote:
| It's a net positive in that it is the only thing stopping
| Google from having complete dominance of the web. Both
| are problems that need to be solved
| greggman3 wrote:
| You solve that problem by making a better browser, not by
| limiting user choice.
| wyre wrote:
| Firefox has, more or less, consistently been a better
| browser than Chrome, but because Google has a monopoly on
| the internet Chrome gets the majority of the market
| share. A better product cannot defeat a monopoly.
| bobsmith432 wrote:
| > I don't find effectively forcing Safari on users to be
| a good thing. Even if it takes some market share away
| from Chrome, it just makes a new platform specific
| monopoly, and arguably a worse one with less pressure to
| change.
|
| Safari has no pressure to change because it literally
| can't, Apple WebKit is the ONLY rendering engine on iOS.
|
| But for Apple's love of avoiding standards, you won't
| usually find people who care or who are concerned about
| it until it actually gets in your way (your issue for
| example), for the most part nobody cares about USB-C not
| being universal for iPhones as I'm the 14-24 demographic
| in the US and everyone sees USB-C as the "Android"
| charger or even funnier the "vape" charger, and they see
| Lightning port as the only phone charger ever made (I
| genuinely had to remind my sister that 40-pin is a
| thing), and for example that's all I can talk on because
| none of the other things have genuinely got in my way
| (mainly because my only Apple products are over 10 years
| old).
| leksak wrote:
| "This significant penalty [...]" is it really a significant
| penalty when Google has deep coffers?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| No, but it might send a message to other digital platforms like
| the quote says. Google won't even notice this, everyone smaller
| will now worry about receiving their own $60M fine which would
| ruin them.
| enlyth wrote:
| I don't understand what's so hard on doing fines based on %
| revenue or something similar, that would solve such issues.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| The size of the fine likely is somewhat revenue based,
| that's why they used Google to scare others.
| 37 wrote:
| >The size of the fine likely is somewhat revenue based
|
| What? Says who? It's just a number that the ACCC and
| Google both agreed upon. FTA: _The ACCC and Google
| jointly submitted to the Court that a penalty of $60
| million against Google LLC was appropriate, and that no
| separate penalty against Google Australia Pty Ltd was
| necessary, in circumstances where the Australian company
| was not responsible for the preparation of the screens
| which the Court found were misleading._
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >It's just a number that the ACCC and Google both agreed
| upon.
|
| Both groups agreed on it being fully aware of Google's
| revenue, and if Google had the revenue of an average
| company it's likely neither side would have suggested the
| amount. Somewhat revenue based.
| 37 wrote:
| >Both groups agreed on it being fully aware of Google's
| revenue, and if Google had the revenue of an average
| company it's likely neither side would have suggested the
| amount. Somewhat revenue based.
|
| It says absolutely nothing of the sort in the article.
| Seems like yet another assumption you are making.
|
| By the same logic, both groups are fully aware that
| Google starts with the letter G, therefore the size of
| the fine is based on the fact that Google starts with the
| letter G.
|
| I'm really not trying to be an asshole here, but please
| don't go around saying things that you don't know to be
| true.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >It says absolutely nothing of the sort in the article.
| Seems like yet another assumption you are making.
|
| Google's revenue is public knowledge, surely the ACCC is
| capable of using a search engine to find it.
|
| >but please don't go around saying things that you don't
| know to be true.
|
| I can't prove it, or perhaps I could if the ACCC has
| fined others for the same offense, but even without proof
| I'm not making an extraordinary claim. If a local
| delivery place had two separate toggles needed to stop
| them from tracking your order history, they'd be guilty
| of the same thing yet people would find a $60M fine
| ridiculous.
| mkl95 wrote:
| IIRC the EU does that, but there is a limit that isn't sky
| high. So it's more likely to deter smaller FAANG
| competitors than actual FAANG companies.
| DoughnutHole wrote:
| The maximum GDPR fine is the higher of EUR20 million or
| 4% of global turnover, which is pretty substantial. In
| Google's case the maximum fine based on 2021 revenue
| would be ~EUR10 billion, about 13% of their profits in
| that year. It's not completely crippling but it's a
| significant hit, especially considering that they can get
| fined again and again for additional violations.
|
| The fines are a much bigger deal for companies with lower
| profit margins - Amazon had ~EUR470 billion in revenue in
| 2021, and only ~EUR8 billion in profits. The maximum fine
| Amazon could receive is ~EUR18.8 billion - more than two
| years of profits. A single severe violation potentially
| putting them in the red for 2 years is a pretty strong
| penalty.
|
| [Thank you Euro-Dollar parity for making these
| computations effortless]
| 37 wrote:
| >everyone smaller
|
| Like who? Since 2019, Android and iOS control <99.7% of the
| market in Australia.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/245191/market-share-
| of-m...
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I assume this data collection law does not onlu apply to
| phone operating systems, but any such service that collects
| data and could hide disabling it in multiple places.
| citizenpaul wrote:
| Could even take it one step further and say that Google is
| flaunting bad behavior to put regulator eyes on it on
| purpose. Since Google controls the market anyway it would
| actually help to discourage competitors.
|
| Noam Chomsky would probably agree as he says large
| companies love regulation because it locks out competitors.
| dimitrios1 wrote:
| Noam or no Noam this is pretty well known. Enterprise
| Risk and Compliance departments for major banks and
| financial institutions are a a revolving door of
| lobbyists, regulators, and executives, and they all
| participate in the draft process of the legislation.
|
| It's about time Big Tech caught up to what the rest of
| what large corporations in America do. Gotta start paying
| off those politicians and drafting regulation to lock out
| all those pesky startups.
| spoonjim wrote:
| It is when pretty much every country without a tech economy
| does this to the big players every few months
| simion314 wrote:
| Could be the issue that big players do illegal things? If
| some organization brings this issues in front of a judge what
| should a judge do? He must apply the law. I assume Google had
| competent lawyer present so this is legal, if you are a US
| tech company and don't like this laws (that protect
| consumers)then I suggest don't sell your products/services in
| this countries or follow the laws.
| mvc wrote:
| If the "tech economy" is going to hoover up consumers from
| all over the world, it should expect to contribute it's fair
| share of the costs of maintaining civilisation in those
| societies.
|
| Maybe if they didn't restructure their organizations so as to
| avoid taxes in all but the lowest tax jurisdictions, they
| wouldn't be fined by places where they actually make the
| money.
| spoonjim wrote:
| "Deserve ain't got nothing to do with it."
|
| Both tech companies and governments are doing what they are
| doing because they can.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| > If the "tech economy" is going to hoover up consumers
| from all over the world, it should expect to contribute
| it's fair share of the costs of maintaining civilisation in
| those societies.
|
| How is this not different from how a mafia operates?
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Who is being compared to the mafia? Outsized,
| international conglomerates, accountable only to
| shareholders or governments representing the public?
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| Really? If they were accountable only to shareholders
| would you even have the post here where they have to pay
| fines?
|
| Governments represent public. Sure. But they are slaves
| to other corporations
|
| https://reason.com/2021/02/18/everybodys-wrong-about-the-
| fac...
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| The problem appears to be that the fines are a wrist
| slap, so cost of doing business once entrenched.
|
| Regulatory capture is also a problem. I prefer
| governments with less corruption, debilitating fines,
| companies less powerful than nation states, and robust
| antitrust enforcement to maintain healthy competition.
| drstewart wrote:
| >Maybe if they didn't restructure their organizations so as
| to avoid taxes in all but the lowest tax jurisdictions,
| they wouldn't be fined by places where they actually make
| the money.
|
| So to be clear, these fines aren't legitimate but instead
| are backdoor taxes meant to compensate for the government's
| inability to capture the taxes they've established? Is that
| your position here? And you're insinuating this is a good
| thing?
| [deleted]
| Silverback_VII wrote:
| if you open those coffers you may be surprised at how many
| mindless worms are eating away their precious content.
| bsaul wrote:
| i've always wondered where the money is going in those kinds of
| trials.
|
| It's supposed to be a compensation for damages to the consumers,
| but are the consumers ever getting any money from the fine ?
| netrus wrote:
| From my quick reading, it's a penalty, so it's not necessarily
| supposed to be a compensation, but a deterrent. So I guess the
| answer is that the money goes to "everyone", which is fine in
| my book (otherwise you have all the overhead of registering who
| gets what, which leads to a large chunk going to law firms).
| andyferris wrote:
| Correct, the fines are those set in legislation and collected
| by the government. I suppose in the US you might say Google
| was found guilty of a "corporate misdemeanor"? I think the
| ACCC overlaps with some functions of the FTC; they are the
| investigator and prosecutor in such cases.
|
| (It's worth noting that while Australia does have class
| actions for collecting compensation, here civil cases can
| never collect punitive damages so it's probably hard to
| extract a large sum from Google through that route in this
| particular case).
| xchip wrote:
| $60M, provided they have 60M users, that means a penalty of $1
| per user. And I bet they have more users than that, so that is
| why companies keep on doing this, because it is damn cheap.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Or because these are two different apps and users don't
| actually find this confusing. The same thing happens on iOS.
| You can toggle location usage for Google search and location
| history in Google Maps.
| dahart wrote:
| > so that is why companies keep on doing this
|
| Google already stopped this, so which companies are you
| referring to?
|
| This fine is only for Australia, and Google has had to pay
| billions in fines globally, which is not cheap and has changed
| their data collection practices. The suggestion that fines
| aren't working isn't accurate.
| xchip wrote:
| Just give them some time, this happens every 3 years.
| dahart wrote:
| Does it? Mind passing along some links to demonstrate the
| pattern?
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| It feels like government agencies and companies have found a
| spot where the fines aren't too much for companies to stop but
| enough for government to be financed. It's not about deterrence
| but about mutually beneficial arrangement.
| gpm wrote:
| Australia has a population of 25 million, so it's very unlikely
| that they have 60 million users.
|
| The product in question is Android, 15 million is probably a
| reasonable guesstimate and nicely divides to $4 per user. Still
| not a ton, but not quite as low as you're suggesting.
| 37 wrote:
| FTA: _The ACCC's best estimate, based on available data, is
| that the users of 1.3 million Google accounts in Australia
| may have viewed a screen found by the Court to have breached
| the Australian Consumer Law._
| gpm wrote:
| Oops, read over that, thanks :)
| andyferris wrote:
| Hmm so roughly 27 USD per user over the 2 year period in
| question, or US$13.50 per annum per user.
|
| Roughly how much revenue (and profit) does Google make per
| Android user per year through targetted ads, etc (over and
| above e.g. an iPhone user)?
| ErikCorry wrote:
| Google makes less profit from an Android user than an
| iPhone user. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/
| mar/29/google-ea...
| ErikCorry wrote:
| Lol the truth hurts!
| swores wrote:
| 60M / 1.3M = au$46.15 = us$32.85
|
| Splitting hairs but by the time I noticed you'd done a
| currency conversion (which had made me think your number
| was way off) I figured might as well be accurate.
|
| Edit: while being pedantic, I'll also point out that
| halving for a "per annum" amount doesn't really make
| sense considering the estimate of 1.3M users is ones who
| "may have viewed a screen found by the Court to have
| breached the Australian Consumer Law" during the two
| years, not who were exposed to two years worth of
| anything.
| kurupt213 wrote:
| Facebook was making $50 per user before apple crippled
| them, so I would assume Google makes at least that much
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| This occurred in Australia, Australia uses Australian
| Dollars. Thus they are not being fined USD, they are
| being fined AUD. USD does not have anything to do with
| this discussion whatsoever.
| boredumb wrote:
| Doubtful they have 60 million users in Australia for a lot of
| reasons. Also $60,000,000 isn't damn cheap.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-12 23:01 UTC)