You are here
The Evidence Google Violated DOJ's Criminal Non-Prosecution Agreement -- Part 27 Google Unaccountability series
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2013-08-08 11:24
Please click -- here for the powerpoint presentation: "The public evidence Google violated the DOJ-Google criminal non-prosecution agreement."
In August of 2011, Google admitted criminal liability for knowingly advertising for rogue pharmacies dispensing drugs without a prescription for seven years despite repeated Government warnings to stop doing so.
To settle this criminal matter in advance of a Grand Jury proceeding, Google agreed in the DOJ-Google Criminal Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA ) to disgorge $500m in ill-gotten revenues and to obey a two-year remediation requirement designed to deter more Google criminal activity.
The purpose of this presentation is to hold Google accountable to the rule of law and its public representations.
The public evidence to date strongly indicates that Google broadly and repeatedly violated the main going-forward remediation requirement in the NPA: to have a “comprehensive compliance and ethics program, and policies, procedures and technological tools designed to detect and prevent violations of these laws and to ensure compliance with internal Company policies and procedures.”
Sadly, the public evidence shows that the NPA did not deter more Google criminal activity because:
Importantly, the mission of the Department of Justice is: "To enforce the law…; to ensure public safety; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”
Questions for the DOJ: Have DOJ investigators independently verified:
In sum, does the DOJ expect Google -- the company operating America’s top online market, serving over 200 million Americans, and most U.S. online advertisers and publishers -- to abide by the NPA and obey the law?
You can see the 25-page power point with links to the evidence -- here.
Google Unaccountability Research Series:
Part 0: Google's Poor and Defiant Settlement Record
Part 1: Why Google Thinks It Is Above the Law
Part 2: Top Ten Untrue Google Stories
Part 3: Google's Growing Record of Obstruction of Justice
Part 4: Why FTC's $22.5m Privacy Fine is Faux Accountability
Part 5: Google's Culture of Unaccountability: In Their Own Words
Part 6: Google Mocks the FTC's Ineffectual Privacy & Antitrust Enforcement
Part 7: An FTC Googleopoly Get Out of Jail Free Card?
Part 8: Top Lessons to Learn for Google Antitrust Enforcers
Part 9: Google Mocks EU and FTC in Courting Yahoo Again
Part 10: FTC-Google Antitrust: The Obvious Case of Consumer Harm
Part 11: Why FTC Can't Responsibly End the Google Search Bias Antitrust Investigation
Part 12: Oversight Questions for FTC's Handling of Google Antitrust Probe
Part 13: Courts Not FTC Should Decide on Google Practices (The Hill Op-ed)
Part 14: Troubling Irregularities Mount in FTC Commissioners' Handling of Google Antitrust Investigation
Part 15: Top Ten Unanswered Questions on FTC-Google Outcome
Part 16: Top Takeaways from FTC’s Google Antitrust Decision
Part 17: Google’s Global Antitrust Rap Sheet
Part 18: Google’s Privacy Words vs. its Anti-privacy Deeds
Part 19: Google’s Privacy Rap Sheet Updated – Fact-checking Google’s Claim it Works Hard to Get Privacy Right
Part 20: DOJ & FTC Report Cards
Part 21: The Evidence Google Bamboozled EU Competition Authorities
Part 22: EU-Google: Too Powerful to Prosecute? The Problems with Politically Enabling Google
Part 23: Google’s proposed EU Search Bias Remedies: a Satire
Part 24: Google’s Antitrust Rap Sheet Updated
Part 25: Is this the record of a trustworthy company? Check out Google’s consolidated rap sheet
Part 26: Top questions as DOJ-Google criminal prosecution deadline of August 19th approaches