Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Technology

Google To Pay $8 Million Settlement For 'Lying To Texans,' State AG Says (arstechnica.com) 32

Posted by BeauHD from the clashing-with-Paxton dept.
Google has agreed to an $8 million settlement with Texas over deceptive ads for its Pixel 4 smartphone, in which radio DJs were hired to provide testimonials without being given the phone to use. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton made the announcement last week. Ars Technica reports: At issue was Google's trustworthiness as an advertiser after the tech giant "hired radio DJs to record and broadcast detailed testimonials about their personal experiences with the Pixel 4," but then "refused to provide the DJs with a phone for them to use," Paxton said. The tech giant had previously settled claims from the Federal Trade Commission and six other states for approximately $9 million, and Paxton seemed proud that his "settlement recovers $8 million for the State of Texas alone."

Paxton said that "if Google is going to advertise in Texas, their statements better be true." He decided to take action to hold Google "accountable for lying to Texans for financial gain," saying that large companies should not expect "special treatment under the law." "Texas will do whatever it takes to protect our citizens and our state economy from corporations' false and misleading advertisements," Paxton said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google To Pay $8 Million Settlement For 'Lying To Texans,' State AG Says More

Google To Pay $8 Million Settlement For 'Lying To Texans,' State AG Says

Comments Filter:

  • Paxton himself could probably be charged with that.

  • Unless... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by themightythor ( 673485 ) on Monday May 15, 2023 @07:45PM (#63524325)

    Texas will do whatever it takes to protect our citizens and our state economy from corporations' false and misleading advertisements

    Unless those corporations happen to be selling firearms at which point we'll allow whatever I guess?

  • And the DJs and influencers were charged with ... what, exactly?

    Because they also engaged in fraud here, unless they immediately rejected the contract once learning they couldn't form an independent opinion...

    • I don't know about this whole case... I always thought a paid endorsement was more like being an actor. I think it's more important to disclose whether the person is being paid than to try to divine whether they are truly saying what is in their heart at that moment. Did Peyton Manning really love eating Papa John's so much?

      • Re:DJs? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Monday May 15, 2023 @08:29PM (#63524457)

        Theres a difference between playing a part in a well defined advert, and endorsing a product specifically yourself through a testimonial.

        This is why most countries both require full disclosure for paid product placements and that if the product placement piece includes the opinion of the influencer then its a true opinion rather than a forced opinion.

        If the influencers in question wrote anything positive about using the product without actually having used the product, then its fraud.

  • Here's a company with a spotless and continued history of not being exploitative of its users and customers, and now this... "Don't be evil" and all... Now my world is shattered.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kqs ( 1038910 )

      Here's a company

      I mean, that's all you needed to say. Or "Here's a person". I don't know any entity which is 100% trustworthy.

      "Not 100%" isn't the same as "equally bad", of course. There are just so many companies whose business model is "mislead, mislead, mislead", and that ain't Google. I expect the advertising branch of most companies to be among the least trustworthy parts, and if the worst crime here is folks saying "I love my Product X" when they haven't used Product X, I'm not reaching for my pitchfork.

  • Google "lied wrong" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday May 15, 2023 @08:18PM (#63524417) Journal

    Fake personal testimonials is a common practice of DJ's. I know this because they often contradict themselves, such as "I like Cheerios the most" one month and then "I like Corn Chex the most" the next. If sued over that, they can simply say, "I changed my mind", and there'd be no objective proof otherwise.

    This is the first time I've ever heard a crack-down on this shady practice.

    It probably happened because Google's "real" mistake from a business perspective is not giving them actual phones to try, because if they had, they'd probably have enough plausible deniability to win in court, as giving DJ's a phone "to try" and letting them keep it is not direct lying, just shady influence.

    It's comparable to giving relatives of prominent politicians an inflated salary or job title, or streamlining red tape for them. Proving they "don't deserve it" in an objective way is difficult, because a lot of managers/marketers/executives do bullshit for a living anyhow. Business is largely the art of bullshitting to customers, clients, and regulators without getting caught. (Influence peddling happens in *both* parties, BTW.)

    • Pretty much every YouTube channel falls into this trap these days, since sponsors demand that content creators narrate the ads personally.

      Frankly, I think YouTube feels more like the new radio rather than the new TV.

  • Should have given them a damn phone, would have cost a hell of a lot more than $8 Million!

  • "Radio DJs are untrustworthy"

    Because if someone asks you to give a personal testimonial and you've never seen the product but you do it anyways, that's on you buddy.

    But hey, lawyers gotta lawy.

    • Right, that was my first thought. The DJs are the ones that actually committed fraud here and are not to be trusted. Google played a role, yes, but the DJs then went and played the tune.

      • You can't get blood from a stone. How else is Ken Paxton going to fill his slush fund?

      • Google enticed the DJs to commit fraud. The DJs themselves may (or may not) face personal consequences. The DJs themselves were unlikely to have gotten enough money to make it financially worthwhile to prosecute them (although it may make sense as a deterrent for future offenders).

        I am not a lawyer, but fraud might very well be a case of "joint and severable" liability or some similar concept. That is to say, Texans were defrauded by a combination of Google and the DJs. The state has the right to try

    • Why would you assume them to be any more trustworthy than the influenzas that peddle crap on YouTube to unsuspecting teens?

  • I bet Sundar Pichai will pay one of his minions to rummage around in his sofa to find the $8 million in small change... or maybe they have a few million in petty cash lying around in the office that they can send someone over with at lunchtime.

    Hasn't the judge heard of punitive damages, the important word being "punitive"?
    • Punitive damages are usually measured in relation to the harm caused not the perpetrators ability to pay. How much harm was really caused here? That $8M might be a multiple of the actual harm.
      • I think you're confusing compensation with punishment.
        • No, I'm not. If a billionaire causes $1M of harm, they will be expected to pay back $1M in compensation plus up to about $9M of punitive damages. Here in the US there was a very strangle legal case that set the limit as a total of 10x the harm caused. If a person worth $100 causes $1M of harm, they will be expected to pay $1M in compensation plus $9M of punitive damages. That's just how it is. Punitive damages are partially a deterrent and having to pay back 10x is a pretty decent deterrent and discour

  • And yet they let political parties advertise (Score:3)

    by Growlley ( 6732614 ) on Tuesday May 16, 2023 @05:35AM (#63525237)
    The irony it burns,
    • Commercial speech and political speech are treated entirely differently in the US legal system.
  • Texans are proud to announce that their Politician's never lie to them... More at 11.

  • That's like fining the average guy about $2. In other words, meaningless.

    • Then again I'd love to receive a $2 fine from everybody who expresses a baseless opinion online to get some likes. I'd be a gazillionaire.
  • ..there are DJs out there who actually use the products they promote?

Slashdot Top Deals

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Close