Analysts are now thinking in EBITDAS: Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, Amortization, and Slaps on the Wrist.
gnabgib · 11h ago
Title: Google hit with $314 million US verdict in cellular data class action, which fits, why the edit - you might has well have mentioned it's jury decision in California only, like past submissions?
Xlythe · 8h ago
What was the data actually sent out? It was vague enough to sound like it could be tracking data (eg. Location) or it could be something like automatic updates.
Diti · 1h ago
It’s practically everything, IMHO. Last time I set up an Android device, I had to agree to at least 9 different Terms of Service before being allowed to use the phone.
add-sub-mul-div · 11h ago
If Google pays in advance do they get to lock in this rate for next year?
accoil · 10h ago
Don't fines generally escalate for repeat offenders?
add-sub-mul-div · 8h ago
Yes hence the joke about why it would be worthwhile to lock in this rate.
accoil · 8h ago
I did suspect Poe was involved.
Been trying to think it through, but I guess I'm getting annoyed by how trivial people seem to think fines are.
I'm not sure how to research this, but it seems like most companies hit with a fine like that will change their behavior. Malicious compliance exists (and I would not put it past Google), but it is at least moving in a better direction.
That said. I also think Google has access to powerful tools to manipulate the laws behind the fines....
temp4827482 · 7h ago
Google just got hit with a $314 million fine for secretly tracking Android users’ locations. Sounds big, right? Not really. In 2024, Alphabet made $62 billion in net income — this fine is just 0.5% of that.
History shows fines this small don’t change corporate behavior.
Take HSBC. In 2012, they paid $1.9 billion for laundering cartel and sanctioned-country money — 11% of their profit that year. Still, they were later linked to another $4.2 billion laundering ring between 2014–2017[1][2].
Or Pfizer. In 2009, they were fined $2.3 billion for illegally marketing drugs — about 25% of that year’s profit. Yet more settlements followed in the years after[3][4].
If 10–25% fines didn’t deter repeat offenses, a 0.5% fine won’t even register. Google will just move on and likely continue the same behavior.
People here think the fine is trivial because it is. Unless you include some sort of regulatory oversight or criminal charges, corporate behavior doesn't change, it's just the cost of doing business to them.
Been trying to think it through, but I guess I'm getting annoyed by how trivial people seem to think fines are.
I'm not sure how to research this, but it seems like most companies hit with a fine like that will change their behavior. Malicious compliance exists (and I would not put it past Google), but it is at least moving in a better direction.
That said. I also think Google has access to powerful tools to manipulate the laws behind the fines....
History shows fines this small don’t change corporate behavior.
Take HSBC. In 2012, they paid $1.9 billion for laundering cartel and sanctioned-country money — 11% of their profit that year. Still, they were later linked to another $4.2 billion laundering ring between 2014–2017[1][2].
Or Pfizer. In 2009, they were fined $2.3 billion for illegally marketing drugs — about 25% of that year’s profit. Yet more settlements followed in the years after[3][4].
If 10–25% fines didn’t deter repeat offenses, a 0.5% fine won’t even register. Google will just move on and likely continue the same behavior.
People here think the fine is trivial because it is. Unless you include some sort of regulatory oversight or criminal charges, corporate behavior doesn't change, it's just the cost of doing business to them.
Sources: [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-20673466 [2] https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2021-07-28/mon... [3] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-... [4] [5]links weren't working unless through google, leaving the wiki page here instead on the lawsuits: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer particularly the section on Illegal marketing of Bextra settlement (2009): it required a "corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General that required it to make substantial structural reforms within the company, and publish to its website its post approval commitments and a searchable database of all payments to physicians made by the company." Finally something more than just a fine.