Google’s Antitrust Rap Sheet Updated
Three new Google antitrust developments in just the last few weeks warrant an update to Google’s ominously-growing Antitrust Rap Sheet; see it here.
- The EU issued a Statement of Objections signaling it has concluded that Google has anti-competitively abused its standards essential patents acquired from Motorola.
- Canada just launched a broad investigation of Google’s business practices given Google’s ~90% search/search advertising in Canada.
- The biggest surprise was the U.S. FTC reportedly has started an antitrust investigation of Google-DoubleClick over display ads.
It is telling that Google has been found to have broken antitrust laws in ten different ways. In addition, Google is under antitrust investigation in eleven countries and the EU.
Google continues to claim that it has done nothing wrong and that it is the real victim here of a grand anti-Google conspiracy.
However, the evidence speaks volumes that Google is trying to divert attention from its long track record of being a scofflaw.
- Google’s antitrust rap sheet catalogues 27 offenses over the last six years.
- Google’s privacy rap sheet has over 60 offenses over the last decade;
- Google’s list of property infringements includes over 40 offenses over the last decade;
- Google settled with the U.S. DOJ for $500m to avoid criminal prosecution for knowingly and actively marketing the import of illegal prescription drugs into the U.S over a period of several years; and
- Google is currently being investigated for tax fraud in the UK for claiming that hundreds of UK Google salespeople, who sell in the UK to UK businesses, somehow have virtually no reportable sales in the UK to be taxed, because they are reported to have occurred in Ireland where they are not taxed.
How can one company have so many serious law enforcement problems occurring repeatedly throughout the company in so many jurisdictions?
It is a logical outgrowth of Google’s leadership long fostering a Google culture of unaccountability.
[First published at The Precursor Blog, as part 24 of the Google Unaccountability Series]