[HN Gopher] Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep j...
___________________________________________________________________
Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial
Author : tildef
Score : 172 points
Date : 2024-05-20 22:01 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| nine_zeros wrote:
| In most parts of the world, this would be recognized as bribery.
| banish-m4 wrote:
| It's legal in the US when a lobbyist is involved and too big to
| jail.
|
| Corporate attitude: Just do the risk management of paying
| "parking tickets" vs. "buying a parking permit".
|
| "Do no evil"
| sundvor wrote:
| My feeling is that they'd rather buy the parking lot
| management company than pay their parking fine. With a cash
| reserve of $108bn (1) then it's all just FU money at this
| point, it really doesn't matter - there's no consequences for
| their wrongdoing.
|
| (This is more of a cynic, generalised comment about Google
| and companies in the same position abusing their power than
| directly specific to this case. And yes, I was around from
| the start when they "did no evil"; it's just depressing.)
|
| ((1: According to https://companiesmarketcap.com/alphabet-
| google/cash-on-hand/ ))
| anon84873628 wrote:
| By the way, it was actually "Don't be evil".
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| This isn't a bribe, and there's no lobbying. This is a sort of
| weird form of "tactical retreat" in the lawsuit. By conceding
| on the damages the government is demanding (or at least the
| ones Google thinks the DOJ can prove), Google is taking the
| issue of damages off the table, and they believe that this
| takes the demand for a jury trial off the table. They are
| taking the loss to avoid having a jury trial.
| free_bip wrote:
| Your comment did not in any way refute the claim that this
| would be considered a bribe in other countries. It's an
| exchange of money for a favorable (to them) change in the
| legal process, which seems like a reasonable definition to
| me.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Bribery usually implies that the payment is illegal and not
| part of the regular judicial process (otherwise, "paying
| damages to the government as part of a settlement
| agreement" would be bribery in all cases). And usually it
| enriches a particular government agency or individual.
|
| In this case the payment is part of the judicial process,
| and achieves its goals even if it isn't accepted. So it
| clearly isn't a bribe.
| dmayle wrote:
| It's not a bribe, because the government claimed that
| Google owed this amount of money, and Google paid it. If
| this was a check to prevent Government action, you might
| consider it a bribe. If it had been paid to an individual,
| you might consider it a bribe. In this case, the law says
| that there can only be a trial by jury if there is
| financial damage. With Google conceding the amount claimed
| and paying it, there is no financial damage, and thus there
| can not be a trial by jury. The money is not being spent to
| purchase a trial without jury, it's a fine being paid to
| change the rules of the encounter.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > the government claimed that Google owed this amount of
| money
|
| Where did the Gov claim Google owed [the amount equal to
| the check]?
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| They claimed Google owed damages and the check is for
| some amount related to either what they asked for or the
| damages Google thinks they can prove. If the judge agrees
| (or the DOJ, which is a lot less likely), this takes
| damages off the table. From there, they can see if the
| judge will take a jury trial off the table.
| Andrex wrote:
| At the end of the discovery phase.
|
| > Google said that after months of discovery, the Justice
| Department could only point to estimated damages of less
| than $1 million.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| It's not a bribe, because no individual is being enriched
| in exchange for taking a different decision than they
| otherwise would take.
| latency-guy2 wrote:
| It did refute the claim, you don't like the answer, very
| big difference.
|
| Twisting the words around to fit your argument on the other
| hand is not convincing.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Wait, in every single jurisdiction, when Alice wants
| something and Bob can do it, bribery is when Alice pays
| Charlie, who happens to be representing Bob for the
| transaction, to get the thing done. The canonical example
| of bribery is that a supplier (Alice) gives a company
| manager (Charlie) a nice watch in order to close a deal
| with the company (Bob).
|
| In this case, Alice (Google) is paying Bob (the DoJ) with
| the expectation that Charlie (the judge in the case) will
| be forced to do something in response to the payment. Bob
| is in court with Alice to (ostensibly) get this payment as
| well as a few other things. Bob and Charlie here have no
| relationship. Nothing about this is bribery.
|
| If this is a bribe, then paying your parking tickets is a
| bribe. If this is a bribe, buying something from an
| electronics store with the expectation that you can
| download the user manual from the manufacturer's website is
| a bribe.
| free_bip wrote:
| Paying your parking ticket does not change the legal
| process - The govt sends you a letter saying you must pay
| the fine or challenge in court, and you pay it.
|
| What Google is doing is changing the legal process - The
| govt wants a jury trial, Google is saying "here's some
| money, now no more jury trial." It seems more than a bit
| different, at least to my non-lawyer eyes.
| latency-guy2 wrote:
| Which parts?
| Havoc wrote:
| > Google asserted that its check, which it said covered its
| alleged overcharges for online ads, allows it to sidestep a jury
| trial whether or not the government takes it.
|
| wtf. Since when does cutting a cheque allow you to directly
| dictate how legal process works?
|
| Instead of paying a speeding fine this is like going to the judge
| and saying here is 100 bucks to pretend the speed limit is 10 mph
| higher and then we hold the trial under those conditions.
|
| Gotta admire the balls on the google lawyers though.
| lesuorac wrote:
| > Instead of paying a speeding fine this is like going to the
| judge and saying here is 100 bucks to pretend the speed limit
| is 10 mph higher and then we hold the trial under those
| conditions.
|
| Uh isn't that how it works? You plead no contest and pay a fine
| and don't even have to see the judge?
| pkaye wrote:
| I think a defendant can ask for a judge to decide instead of
| a jury.
| jjmarr wrote:
| To use the speeding ticket analogy, this is the equivalent of
| just paying the fine. The government can't sue you over an
| unpaid speeding ticket if you pay the ticket.
|
| The reason why this might work is the Seventh Amendment, which
| guarantees a jury in federal lawsuits so long as the amount
| disputed is over $20.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_Unite...
|
| > In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
| exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
| preserved
|
| If Google says "yep, we're not disputing that we owe the
| federal govt $1 million, here's a cheque for that amount",
| their argument is that the "value in controversy" is now $0.
| Since $0 is less than $20, that clause doesn't apply.
|
| I'd like to hear what an actual lawyer has to say on the odds
| this'll work, though.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| The $20+ rule is about _guaranteeing_ a jury trial. If one of
| the parties and the judge go for it it can still happen
| right?
| foolswisdom wrote:
| No, it's about a party's right to demand a jury trial.
| userbinator wrote:
| I wondered about that $20 amount, and sure enough, from that
| page:
|
| _The amendment additionally guarantees a minimum of six
| members for a jury in a civil trial. The amendment 's twenty-
| dollar threshold has not been the subject of much scholarly
| or judicial writing and still remains applicable despite the
| inflation that has occurred since the late 18th century ($20
| in 1800 is equivalent to $359 in 2023_
| sundvor wrote:
| This would be just if it was a Finnish speeding ticket fine.
| Havoc wrote:
| > To use the speeding ticket analogy, this is the equivalent
| of just paying the fine.
|
| It's just not. You don't get to set your own damages amount
| in advance of a trial and you certainly don't get dictate
| random conditions on modifying legal process to government
| when you do.
| ungreased0675 wrote:
| Big companies can just pay money to make antitrust cases go
| away?!?
| agravier wrote:
| I feel that the interrobang !? better conveys sarcastic
| exclamation.
| sundvor wrote:
| As evidenced, yes. This reeks of corruption to me.
| andylei wrote:
| case would still happen, just without a jury (maybe)
| Zigurd wrote:
| Boeing paid money to make a criminal fraud prosecution go away.
| Then the law firm representing Boeing hired the DoJ lawyer who
| negotiated the deal, which cut the victims out of the
| negotiation, possibly in contravention of victims' rights.
|
| Boeing then failed to comply with the agreement and allegedly
| crimed again within the term of their deferred prosecution
| agreement in the door plug incident. This all running
| concurrently with the outgoing CEO getting a $33M bonus.
|
| So. Yeah.
| geysersam wrote:
| > Then the law firm representing Boeing hired the DoJ lawyer
| who negotiated the deal
|
| Did I interpreted that correctly, did they bribe the DoJ
| lawyer?
| paulddraper wrote:
| Cheat code: _If you pay damages demanded by the plantiff, you
| can make any civil case go away._
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| For everyone who doesn't understand what's going on: Google has
| written a check that they claim covers the monetary damages
| involved in the case, and has conceded that amount. That would
| take damages off the table for this case. With no monetary
| damages, Google thinks that the state has no right to demand a
| jury trial.
|
| They have also said in the article that the amount that Google
| claims the DOJ can prove is less than $1 million, so there's a
| chance this is a very small check from Google's perspective.
|
| Polling the jury pool is not an uncommon practice in high-stakes
| trials, and I assume that Google has run a poll of the jury pool
| and found them hostile enough that they are willing to concede to
| 7-8 figures to avoid a jury getting involved in the decision
| whether to break Google up.
| karaterobot wrote:
| > Another legal scholar, Herbert Hovenkamp of the University of
| Pennsylvania's law school, called Google's move "smart" in a
| post on X. "Juries are bad at deciding technical cases, and
| further they do not have the authority to order a breakup," he
| wrote.
|
| Would a jury have the authority to break Google up?
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| A jury would definitely be able to set the damages number,
| and have some sway on whether Google gets broken up. If a
| jury sets a huge number, the DOJ will be empowered to go for
| a breakup and the judge will be swayed toward agreeing.
|
| Incidentally, I have been somewhat involved in a few court
| cases, and the general advice I have been told is to explain
| [extremely technical topic] at a 3rd grade level if you want
| a jury to understand.
|
| By the way, for people who want to argue that people are
| getting stupider, apparently it was a 6th grade level 30
| years ago.
| titzer wrote:
| Maybe today's third graders are as literate and lucid as
| yesterday's sixth graders?
|
| Hope springs eternal...
| mc32 wrote:
| It may be possible that cases are also getting more complex
| involving more esoteric subjects.
|
| Financial instruments and technology have changed a bit
| over time. Previously there may have been better analogues
| to compare things without stretching reality too much.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| And people who sell both of those things have an
| incentive to make the process of creating them as
| difficult to understand as possible by the public.
| mc32 wrote:
| Somethings are inherently complex and hard to reduce.
| gds44 wrote:
| In the defense of the people, there has been an explosion
| of useless information. Just look at the number of settings
| on an Android phone or Chrome browser or in your Google
| account. Human Brains dont grow at the same rate year on
| year.
| ab5tract wrote:
| How is it legally possible to avoid a jury just because the
| absolute, immutable majority of people understand that you are
| guilty?
| rhaps0dy wrote:
| By paying the maximum possible amount of damages for the case
| that the plaintiff reasonably alleges, apparently.
| nradov wrote:
| This is a civil case. The jury wouldn't be deciding on guilt.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| It's possible to avoid a jury trial in a civil case by
| removing from dispute the issues which would give the other
| side the right to demand a jury trial.
| Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote:
| How is that beneficial to society?
| tedunangst wrote:
| The dispute is resolved.
| chii wrote:
| but it's not resolved, it is "repaired" by a cheque for
| an amount that was determined ahead of time by google,
| and the jury not consulted at all?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| It's only resolved if the court agrees that the amount
| tendered is the limit of the monetary judgement it would
| legally be possible for the government to secure at
| trial, and that such a tender does remove the issue from
| the case (both of which are disputed points) in which
| case the damages issues would be resolved and removed
| from the case, and the rest of the case would go forward,
| but as a bench trial, not a jury trial.
| jsnell wrote:
| It wasn't an amount determined by Google. It was the
| entire amount claimed by DoJ, tripled, and with interest.
| rayiner wrote:
| Each individual legal rule isn't formulated according to
| a free-ranging consideration of what's "beneficial to
| society." It would be impossible to administer such a
| system of rules based on _ad hoc_ policy considerations.
|
| The rule here, the Seventh Amendment, confers a right to
| a jury trial when one would have been required under
| English common law at the time the seventh amendment was
| written. Roughly speaking, in the English system, cases
| involving monetary damages were handled in courts of law
| with juries. Cases that involved injunctive relief
| (orders to do or not do something) were handled in courts
| of equity with decisions made by judges.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > How is that beneficial to society?
|
| How is it beneficial to not require extra public burden
| to complete cases when the issues justifying that burden
| are resolved without trial?
|
| Or how is it beneficial that issues get resolved without
| trial?
|
| Because I think both have clear benefits in general.
| toast0 wrote:
| In the US courts system, juries are used to determine
| questions of fact, but if the facts are not in question, a
| judge can apply the law and there's no need for a jury.
|
| Agreeing that there's no question of facts speeds the whole
| process along quite a bit. There's no need for witness
| testimony, it can all be managed in hearings and with
| breifings.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| What's happening is similar to "no contest".
|
| Where Google accepts paying the damages but does not plead or
| admit guilt.
|
| (You can do the same thing if you get a speeding ticket. And
| since you accept the consequences, no reason to go to trial.)
| jachee wrote:
| Dolla dolla bills, y'all.
|
| Basically anything is legally possible with enough of them,
| or just claiming to have enough of them.
|
| Ole Donny T. wasn't really exaggerating when he said that he
| could shoot a man dead in broad daylight on Fifth Ave. and
| get away with it.
| petesergeant wrote:
| I'd like to add the perspective here that only the US "makes
| routine use of jury trials in a wide variety of non-criminal
| cases" [Wikipedia], so most of the world believes that
| justice can take place (at least in some circumstances)
| without a jury
| stubish wrote:
| I'm not sure how Google an claim they have covered the monetary
| damages, when in this case a jury is required to decide what
| the monetary damages actually are. I don't think they will be
| allowed to opt-out of risking punitive damages or higher actual
| damages discovered during trial. I'm kind of surprised they
| tried it given the headlines will obviously be negative.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Don't be evil
| bigiain wrote:
| Get with the times. You're still partying like it's 1999 there.
| hehdhdjehehegwv wrote:
| It's now "respect the opportunity". The second half, "to screw
| over billions of users", is often - but not always! - left
| unsaid.
| 1over137 wrote:
| Only a corporation could do this. Imagine pulling this as a
| natural person. ;(
| ajross wrote:
| People and small entities do this _all the time_. A supplier
| refuses to refund you for a defective product. You file suit in
| small claims court and serve them. Suddenly you receive a
| refund! Your dead beat ex is seven months behind on child
| support so you get a lawyer to threaten them with a custody
| battle. Poof, check arrives.
|
| This is the same principle, and it's not even a legal one. If
| you think you're going to lose (at anything), you want to do so
| as soon as possible to minimize costs and risks. Works for
| chess and wars too.
| dataflow wrote:
| I don't think your comparison holds, because in your examples
| the forcing of the payment _is the point_. In this case the
| payments aren 't the point; stopping the alleged anti-
| competitive behavior is. The payments are just for provable
| collateral damages inflicted along the way.
| jsnell wrote:
| If the monetary damages aren't the point, why did the DoJ
| make (according to the article) a last minute addition to
| the case for monetary damages?
|
| If you're right and forcing the payment of damages isn't
| the point, that seems to add credence to the idea that the
| monetary damages claim is just about manufacturing a
| pretext for a jury trial. Why is DoJ gaming the system a
| good thing?
| dataflow wrote:
| Getting a jury trial isn't gaming the system. If
| anything, avoiding it is.
| jsnell wrote:
| I can't help but notice you didn't answer the question.
| If the monetary damages aren't the point, why did they
| get added into the complaint?
| dataflow wrote:
| To force a jury trial? I thought that was obvious.
| jsnell wrote:
| I mean, yes, I agree that it is obvious. But then that's
| you simultanously claiming that the DoJ is trying to
| "force a jury trial" with a pointless claim of monetary
| damages on one hand, and that they're not trying to game
| the system on the other. Those don't seem very
| compatible. It looks way more as if the DoJ knows they're
| not entitled to a jury trial, would like one for tactical
| reasons, and spent a lot of time and effort in
| fabricating a pretext.
|
| (The filing linked to from the article claims that this
| kind of trial has _never_ gone to a jury in the past, so
| it really is not some kind of standard operating
| procedure.)
| dataflow wrote:
| > But then that's you simultanously claiming that the DoJ
| is trying to "force a jury trial" with a pointless claim
| of monetary damages on one hand
|
| It's not pointless, they're trying to stop the alleged
| anti-competitive behavior. And they want a jury trial to
| aid them in that effort.
|
| > and that they're not trying to game the system on the
| other.
|
| We're going in circles here. Like I said: forcing a jury
| trial isn't "gaming" the system. It's an attempt to
| prevent the usual workarounds from working.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| So, your argument here is that it is acceptable and moral
| for the government to apply trumped up charges to create
| a more favorable environment for a preferred verdict, but
| not acceptable or moral for the defendant to do the same?
| dataflow wrote:
| No. I'm not making any sweeping generalizations. I'm just
| commenting on the specific turn of events in this
| particular case.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| And in this case, you are saying that government doing
| weird things to get a preferred ruling is moral, but a
| vigorous defense is not. I wasn't requiring a
| generalization. It's still a terrible concept in
| specific. Holding defense to a higher standard than the
| plaintiff is bad.
| dataflow wrote:
| > but a vigorous defense is not
|
| I'm sorry, I just realized that was actually a
| miscommunication on my part. I phrased it extremely
| poorly in retrospect (your reading was entirely
| reasonable), but what I had in mind when I wrote
| "avoiding a jury trial" wasn't _Google_ 's avoidance of
| the jury trial in this case, but the _government 's_
| avoidance of a jury trial in general. (i.e. the constant
| willingness to have settlements/plea bargains/etc. before
| a case ever goes to a jury trial.)
| rayiner wrote:
| The system says that decisions involving monetary damages
| are made by juries, and decisions involving injunctive
| relief (ordering a company to do something or not do
| something) are made by judges. If you tack on a claim for
| monetary damages when your that's just a tail wagging the
| dog, when your real focus is the injunctive relief, then
| that is gaming the system.
|
| Or, to put it differently, the government invoked a
| damages claim that's tangential to its case to get in
| front of a jury on a technicality. And Google invoked a
| different technicality to get out from a jury trial. Live
| by the sword die by the sword.
|
| And whether any of this helps or hurts the government's
| chances against Google is entirely irrelevant.
| dataflow wrote:
| > The system says that decisions involving monetary
| damages are made by juries, and decisions involving
| injunctive relief (ordering a company to do something or
| not do something) are made by judges.
|
| The "decisionmaker" isn't the point here. And in fact the
| decision is with the judge in both scenarios:
| https://www.brienrochelaw.com/legal-faqs/can-a-judge-
| overtur...
| creer wrote:
| in the examples, the payment arrives not because it is
| "forced" - in US law it wouldn't be "forced" until much,
| much later. The payment arrives because the alternative is
| worse (by some calculation). Exactly as for this case.
| paulddraper wrote:
| This is how most cases go, for natural persons too.
| hehdhdjehehegwv wrote:
| Unlike the dogshit Search case, this one scares them.
| telotortium wrote:
| Has this actually worked in the past?
| relwin wrote:
| Matt Stoller is tracking this:
| https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-round-up-google-...
| (this is his BIG newsletter, you need to pay for further details)
| jimbobthrowawy wrote:
| I assume if this does get a jury trial, the cheque will affect
| the selection pool. Since anyone who's heard about google doing
| this would probably take it poorly.
| dataflow wrote:
| > The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 2016 case that an offer for
| "complete relief" did not wipe out a class-action claim. But
| Google argued its payment is different, because it submitted an
| actual check and not merely an offer.
|
| Checks aren't cash, right? They can bounce when you cash them. So
| how is it different?
| jsnell wrote:
| It's a cashier's check. They can't bounce.
| voidfunc wrote:
| This is pretty awesome. Gotta love some clever legal maneuvering.
| ab5tract wrote:
| Do I? Is that legally mandated now?
| stubish wrote:
| The Justice System is all about clever legal maneuvering. It
| says it right in the name.
| chomskyole wrote:
| I suppose with enough funds that legal maneuvering is available
| to every single citizen, and that is what this is really about:
| equality of opportunity! Right? /s just in case....
| ab5tract wrote:
| In all seriousness:
|
| > "Google asserted that its check, which it said covered its
| alleged overcharges for online ads, allows it to sidestep a jury
| trial whether or not the government takes it."
|
| Who, exactly, the fuck do they think they are?
| jdietrich wrote:
| A corporation complying with the law.
| hedora wrote:
| Ok, now can we have a jury decide if Google's ad monopoly is only
| worth $1M?
| hedora wrote:
| Alternatively, since Google values their illegal monopoly at
| $1M, can the court just pay that as damages (just in case) to
| the investors, skip the trial, and just break the company up?
|
| That seems more than fair: The illegal scheme in dispute is
| apparently only worth $1M on Google's side, but causing mid to
| high billions in externalities.
| photonthug wrote:
| This is kind of poetic justice. Accidental damage is one
| thing but Any time your whole business model relies on
| creating damage and then paying it off at whatever discounted
| rate your lawyers have negotiated for you, then you really
| are saying that's the value of your company. If corporations
| want to play those games, we should take them at their word
| and let it cut both ways.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| Google's Memo ISO Motion to Dismiss:
|
| https://ia801604.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.5...
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| In other antritrust litigation Google has argued that people love
| the company, that is why they use it and that is why it has
| remained #1. If this is true, then why is Google so afraid of a
| jury. Would it not be comprised of Google supporters.
|
| That Google just thinks paying people off will solve every one of
| its problems, whether its competitors or plaintiffs, perhaps will
| play into the government's narrative.
|
| Google does not win on the merits.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Google denies damages: _Bad bad bad_
|
| Google admits damages: _Bad bad bad_
|
| Lol I don't think they're trying to make you happy.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| The mysterious check:
|
| https://ia801604.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.5...
|
| https://ia801604.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.5...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-21 12:02 UTC)