You are here

Is this the record of a trustworthy company? Check Out Google’s Consolidated Rap Sheet

Google Inc. has a rap sheet longer than any Googler’s arm. See it hereIt shows:

  • 142 incidents in 13 countries and the EU, involving 6 continents;
  • 34 official actions against Google: 1 criminal, 7 fraud, 4 theft, 11 antitrust, and 11 privacy;
  • 6 near-record fines in 3 countries;
  • 11 nations and the EU have Google under antitrust investigation;
  • 11 official privacy sanctions in multiple countries;
  • 12 different industries have sued Google for theft; and
  • 20+ cyber-security lapses have surfaced in the last 2 years.

This evidence shows Google to be the worst corporate scofflaw in modern American history.

It is timely and relevant given that America’s Attorneys General are meeting in Boston June 18th to discuss Google’s alleged aiding and abetting of criminal activity broadly. Google CEO Larry Page and General Counsel Kent Walker have been invited to the closed meeting to discuss the matter.

Last week, Mississippi Attorney General and Co-chair of the National Association of Attorneys General Intellectual Property Committee charged: “Google is aiding and abetting criminal activity and putting consumers at risk."

On every check we have made, Google’s search engine gave us easy access to illegal goods including websites which offer dangerous drugs without a prescription, counterfeit goods of every description, and infringing copies of movies, music, software and games… This behavior means that Google is putting consumers at risk and facilitating wrongdoing, all while profiting handsomely from illegal behavior.”

Let’s put Google’s record wrongdoing in perspective.

Google’s combination of market dominance with willful blindness to criminal activity, has arguably transformed Google into America’s #1 purveyor of: Illicit drugs, forged documents, human trafficking, counterfeit goods/services; and content theft; and simultaneously put Google’s executives at risk of potential charges of criminal negligence, recklessness, racketeering, and/or conspiracy.

Remember, Google Inc. has already officially admitted liability to settle serious criminal violations in a Non-Prosecution Agreement, paid a $500m fine, and promised to cease the illegal behavior.  Now Attorney General Hood effectively is charging that Google has violated the letter and spirit of that Non-Prosecution Agreement in allowing this illegal behavior to continue largely unabated.

Google’s record wrongdoing naturally results from its uniquely-broad dominance, disregard for legal and other limits, unquenchable ambition, and practical unaccountability.

Concerning privacy, Google is Big Brother Inc; it uniquely has developed more ways to monitor more people in more ways than any entity ever, which has predictably led to more privacy violations than any other company.

Alarmingly, Google Inc. has morphed into a dominant, out-of-control bully that is practically accountable to no one, given: minimal competition, a culture of unaccountability, powerless public shareholders, a deceived public, and passive Federal law enforcement.

Hopefully the State AGs and the DOJ will bring much needed accountability to Google to protect consumers and enforce the rule of law.

The bottom line here is that honest, responsible, and ethical companies do not repeatedly violate multiple laws in multiple ways in multiple countries after multiple warnings.

 

* * * * *

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths