75 ms·
Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial
- ungreased0675 2y agoBig companies can just pay money to make antitrust cases go away?!?
- agravier 2y agoI feel that the interrobang ‽ better conveys sarcastic exclamation.
- sundvor 2y agoAs evidenced, yes. This reeks of corruption to me.
- andylei 2y agocase would still happen, just without a jury (maybe)
- Zigurd 2y agoBoeing 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 2y ago> 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 2y agoCheat code: If you pay damages demanded by the plantiff, you can make any civil case go away.
- anticensor 2y agoNot always. Some parties (usually government departments, but sometimes private law entities too) are legally obligated to sue.
- nine_zeros 2y agoIn most parts of the world, this would be recognized as bribery.
- banish-m4 2y agoIt'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 2y agoMy 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/ https://companiesmarketcap.com/alphabet-google/cash-on-hand/ ))
- anon84873628 2y agoBy the way, it was actually "Don't be evil".
- pclmulqdq 2y agoThis 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 2y agoYour 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.
- Havoc 2y ago> 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 2y ago> 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 2y agoI think a defendant can ask for a judge to decide instead of a jury.
- jjmarr 2y agoTo 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_United_States_Constitution 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 2y ago
- pclmulqdq 2y agoFor 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 2y ago> 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 2y agoA 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 2y agoMaybe today's third graders are as literate and lucid as yesterday's sixth graders? Hope springs eternal...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoDon't be evil
- bigiain 2y agoGet with the times. You're still partying like it's 1999 there.
- hehdhdjehehegwv 2y agoIt’s now “respect the opportunity”. The second half, “to screw over billions of users”, is often - but not always! - left unsaid.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 1over137 2y agoOnly a corporation could do this. Imagine pulling this as a natural person. ;(
- ajross 2y agoPeople 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 2y agoI 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 2y agoIf 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?
- hehdhdjehehegwv 2y agoUnlike the dogshit Search case, this one scares them.
- telotortium 2y agoHas this actually worked in the past?
- relwin 2y agoMatt Stoller is tracking this: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-round-up-google-tries-to https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-round-up-google-... (this is his BIG newsletter, you need to pay for further details)
- jimbobthrowawy 2y agoI 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 2y ago> 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 2y agoIt's a cashier's check. They can't bounce.
- voidfunc 2y agoThis is pretty awesome. Gotta love some clever legal maneuvering.
- stubish 2y agoThe Justice System is all about clever legal maneuvering. It says it right in the name.
- ab5tract 2y agoDo I? Is that legally mandated now?
- chomskyole 2y agoI 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 2y agoIn 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 2y agoA corporation complying with the law.
- hedora 2y agoOk, now can we have a jury decide if Google’s ad monopoly is only worth $1M?
- hedora 2y agoAlternatively, 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 2y agoThis 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 2y agoGoogle's Memo ISO Motion to Dismiss: https://ia801604.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.533508/gov.uscourts.vaed.533508.624.0.pdf https://ia801604.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.5...
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y agoIn 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 2y agoGoogle denies damages: Bad bad bad Google admits damages: Bad bad bad Lol I don't think they're trying to make you happy.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y agoThe mysterious check: https://ia801604.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.533508/gov.uscourts.vaed.533508.630.21.pdf https://ia801604.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.5... https://ia801604.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.533508/gov.uscourts.vaed.533508.630.23.pdf https://ia801604.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.5...
- rchaud 2y ago> The company said the government has said the case is “highly technical” and “outside the everyday knowledge of most prospective jurors.” Ah yes, these matters are far too complex for the lowly civilian jury to assess. I mean, can they even invert a binary tree? Much easier to just do away with this whole 'trial' thing. No need to bother the simpletons by entering all these complicated documents (evidence) into the public record. Wonder if Boeing will try the same thing.
- Clubber 2y ago>The Justice Department filed the case last year with Virginia and other states, alleging Google was stifling competition for advertising technology. The government has said Google should be forced to sell its ad manager suite. Google should be broken up.
- anticensor 2y agoGoogle should be stripped off of its for-profit status and converted into a non-profit applied research institute.