Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemdro.id
android·Androidbyijeff

Google pays $93M to settle Android tracking lawsuit in California

cross-posted from [email protected]

  • Google will pay $93M to settle a privacy lawsuit in California for violating consumer protection laws.
  • The company was found to have engaged in deceptive practices related to collecting Android users' location data without proper consent.
  • Users believed disabling "Location History" would stop tracking, but another setting, "Web & App Activity," remained enabled.
  • As part of the settlement, Google will improve user-friendly account controls and be more transparent about data collection practices.
  • This follows similar lawsuits and fines against Google for privacy violations in other jurisdictions.
Google pays $93M to settle Android tracking lawsuit in Californiahttps://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-pays-93m-to-settle-android-tracking-lawsuit-in-california/Open linkView original on lemdro.id
138

8 replies

talreply
kbin.social

That ratio doesn't matter.

What matters is the value derived from some prohibited activity relative to the fine/lawsuits resulting from that activity.

Let's say that Company A sells oranges, and uses some pesticide that isn't approved, and gets a fine for it.

Let's say that Company B sells apples, and improperly claimed that the apples were fresher than they were to grocery stores and is sued for that.

Let's say that Company A and Company B merge and form Company C. The value of Company C would be larger, but it would make no sense for either of the above two disincentives to be larger. Being part of Company C doesn't make engaging in bad behavior more-desirable than it does for when A and B were separate, and so the disincentives one establishes for bad behavior shouldn't grow either.

6

Let's say company C pooled their resources to pay for lawyers that could reduce the penalty to a profitable level, but A and B couldn't individually.

5

The ratio does matter. The fine is supposed to be a punishment/disincentive, but when that disincentive is less than trivial it no longer disincentivizes. Like a crime punishable by a $250 fine--the working class will follow the law because that's three days' but the rich won't care because it's a glass of wine at a decent restaurant. Google will simply pay the fine with no reason or intent to stop the questionable behavior because they'll just pay the trivial fine again when they get caught--just like they've been doing for years...

1

You reached the end

Google pays $93M to settle Android tracking lawsuit in California | Spyke