Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf](storage.courtlistener.com)
storage.courtlistener.com
Judge finds Google destroyed evidence and repeatedly lied to the court [pdf]
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.373179/gov.uscourts.cand.373179.469.0.pdf
127 comments
I wonder how corporations are going to adapt to a world where more and more meetings are transcribed and summarized by language models. Adopting that technology, while it's a productivity boost, will expose companies to vastly greater amounts of liability. There are a lot of comments that can get made off-hand in a meeting that would never make it into chat, let alone an email.
If you read the judgement, the judge doesn't really see any distinction between "can technically record" and "must record", with only financial burdens being accepted as a justification for not doing so. The reasoning goes, because Chat could be recorded, it should have been because it's electronic communication.
But this logic can extend to any form of communication that could technically be recorded. It means that, by extension, all video calls and phone calls should be recorded too if you can afford to do so (but it's cheap, so you can). And that in turn means that the cost of remote work just exploded because many meetings that a non-remote company would have in an office, face to face, should now be recorded and preserved if any of the participants are under a litigation hold. But as the employees testified, at a big company like Google basically in a given discussion at least someone is always under litigation hold. So that means every meeting or phone call may have to be recorded. And that in turn means the discovery cost imposed on companies that allow remote work will be much higher.
Did companies just get a justification for forcing everyone back to the office? It does seem so. Maybe even for reducing the international presence of teams even when they're in the office.
The judge doesn't spell out this small extension of his argument. It seems he was mostly pissed off by Google employees obfuscating about the issue and lying to the court (no excuse for that). But having read it, where's the limit? The aspects of law they're citing talk about "electronically stored information". If not using a technical ability to record is interpreted as the same thing as destroying stored information, then the retention procedures at almost every company are going to be found in non-compliance simply because video calls, phone calls and so on are so often not being recorded.
But this logic can extend to any form of communication that could technically be recorded. It means that, by extension, all video calls and phone calls should be recorded too if you can afford to do so (but it's cheap, so you can). And that in turn means that the cost of remote work just exploded because many meetings that a non-remote company would have in an office, face to face, should now be recorded and preserved if any of the participants are under a litigation hold. But as the employees testified, at a big company like Google basically in a given discussion at least someone is always under litigation hold. So that means every meeting or phone call may have to be recorded. And that in turn means the discovery cost imposed on companies that allow remote work will be much higher.
Did companies just get a justification for forcing everyone back to the office? It does seem so. Maybe even for reducing the international presence of teams even when they're in the office.
The judge doesn't spell out this small extension of his argument. It seems he was mostly pissed off by Google employees obfuscating about the issue and lying to the court (no excuse for that). But having read it, where's the limit? The aspects of law they're citing talk about "electronically stored information". If not using a technical ability to record is interpreted as the same thing as destroying stored information, then the retention procedures at almost every company are going to be found in non-compliance simply because video calls, phone calls and so on are so often not being recorded.
Ah, you're expecting the law to make sense?
Telephone conversations, or the conversation in a meeting, are not "expected" to be recorded. Yes, they could be, but they're not, so it doesn't matter. Your logical extensions are kinda irrelevant.
A chat is recorded, on the server. It isn't deleted after people receive it. Google, and lots of companies, interpret "off the record" to mean that it's deleted after a period.
Telephone conversations, or the conversation in a meeting, are not "expected" to be recorded. Yes, they could be, but they're not, so it doesn't matter. Your logical extensions are kinda irrelevant.
A chat is recorded, on the server. It isn't deleted after people receive it. Google, and lots of companies, interpret "off the record" to mean that it's deleted after a period.
The law should make sense, and your argument is exactly the same as the one Google used with chats, there isn't any difference. It could easily be argued that phone calls are "recorded" by the VOIP systems.
Especially because off the record means there was no 24 hour retention period and the messages were never recorded to begin with. You're mixing up the default behaviour of "history on" (24 hour retention) with "history off" (no retention.
Especially because off the record means there was no 24 hour retention period and the messages were never recorded to begin with. You're mixing up the default behaviour of "history on" (24 hour retention) with "history off" (no retention.
Citation for any of this?
I agree with all your analysis here. This judgement has far reaching consequences. It's reminiscent of discussions around MGM using automated facial recognition to ban people from venues. Our legal framework was set up with an implicit assumption that identifying people and banning them from a business is hard to scale. As soon as you can do it en-masse for thousands of employees of a rival business, the calculus might need to change.
Similarly, our legal framework around the retention of corporate communications was originally framed around only official (and relatively uncommon) communications like memos being on the record. Then email. Now chat. Soon all meetings and phone calls? Each step here is a major step-change that requires careful consideration!
Similarly, our legal framework around the retention of corporate communications was originally framed around only official (and relatively uncommon) communications like memos being on the record. Then email. Now chat. Soon all meetings and phone calls? Each step here is a major step-change that requires careful consideration!
Just do what my company does, and delete all Teams chats in 24 hours! So secure! So protective! So useful, when you need to refer to what was told you last week, before you understood you needed it.
Uh did you read the article cause it addresses that idea.
This court held that once any employee is under a litigation hold then the transcripts need to be retained indefinitely.
The company can just delete them anyway, per their policy. What's the court going to do about it? Jail someone? When has a court ever jailed someone in a big corporation for contempt of court?
The court can find the company (Google) liable, or direct the Jury to consider any hidden evidence would be adverse to Google. If Google loses a (civil) antitrust case to 38 attorney generals it will cost them 100's of billions.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37 (A) For Not Obeying a Discovery Order. If a party or a party's officer, director, or managing agent—or a witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)—fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders. They may include the following:
(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims;
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence;
(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;
(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or
(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37 (A) For Not Obeying a Discovery Order. If a party or a party's officer, director, or managing agent—or a witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)—fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders. They may include the following:
(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims;
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence;
(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;
(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or
(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
I'll believe it when I see it. So far, all I ever see are fines that may seem like a lot to individuals, but for these companies can be considered "the cost of doing business". And I certainly never see company executives behind bars for things that would certainly result in prison time for normal people.
Just because something can happen doesn't have any relation to what's probable or likely. The question is when has a court ever jailed the officer of a big corporation for contempt of court.
indeed, the notion of "on the record" was introduced because a lot of genuinely useful non-sensitive info was conveyed in chat, and people needed to save it.
If you ask your LLM for legal advice - based strictly on a reading of what it was trained with - will this be considered privileged communications ?
No. You can ask me for legal advice, but since I haven't been admitted to the bar, it will not be privileged.
(In any case, I'd refuse to answer, since that would be "practicing law without a license.")
(In any case, I'd refuse to answer, since that would be "practicing law without a license.")
Maybe if it passed the bar exam?
And how is that "off the record" supposed to work anyway? Once you said the phrase, the chat automagically stops sending the texts, or they autodestroy or something? And people get their memories erased like in MIB? Because this looks more like a detective movie scene and less like all day reality.
after a day, it's deleted off the servers.
Some businesses, not sure on google, will actually have lawyers on most meetings in order to circumvent subpoenas as it's "protected" discussions that way... I don't recall the details, just rememember seeing a report on the practice.
"If you're committing an ongoing crime and you involve your lawyer in it, there's no privilege involved. That's not an attorney. It's an accomplice."
http://doctorcleveland.blogspot.com/2018/04/don-corleones-gu...
> Later on, when Don Corleone is incapacitated, [the lawyer] Hagen sits in on a five-person strategy meeting where at least three murders are ordered. Hagen can't claim attorney-client privilege for any of that. Passing the bar is not a license to kill. Hagen is sitting there when his foster-brother Sonny orders a disloyal subordinate named Paulie Gatto killed. If the Gatto murder ever went to trial, Hagen would not be a lawyer but a defendant.
http://doctorcleveland.blogspot.com/2018/04/don-corleones-gu...
> Later on, when Don Corleone is incapacitated, [the lawyer] Hagen sits in on a five-person strategy meeting where at least three murders are ordered. Hagen can't claim attorney-client privilege for any of that. Passing the bar is not a license to kill. Hagen is sitting there when his foster-brother Sonny orders a disloyal subordinate named Paulie Gatto killed. If the Gatto murder ever went to trial, Hagen would not be a lawyer but a defendant.
Sounds like the comment you replied to is a case of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75iv3RKQUAM
Just having a lawyer in the room doesn’t make the conversation privileged. It’s a conversation with the lawyer that is privileged, so they actually have to be a participant.
Uhh...it's also not privileged, if the lawyer is participating in the discussion about ongoing planning of criminal activity.
http://doctorcleveland.blogspot.com/2018/04/don-corleones-gu...
> [The lawyer] Hagen is not only party to that decision but party to a detailed discussion of methods. He cannot pretend attorney-client privilege here either.
http://doctorcleveland.blogspot.com/2018/04/don-corleones-gu...
> [The lawyer] Hagen is not only party to that decision but party to a detailed discussion of methods. He cannot pretend attorney-client privilege here either.
Also true, as the recent crime-fraud exception case demonstrated in one of the trump investigations this very month.
So it’s pretty narrow.
So it’s pretty narrow.
If you want to hear SCOTUS explore the limits of attorney-client privilege, including extensive discussion on just this practice, the oral arguments for In re Grand Jury are well worth a listen:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1397
(SCOTUS ultimately decided to punt the case.)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1397
(SCOTUS ultimately decided to punt the case.)
I've always been told by corporate training that unless a lawyer is being asked a particular legal question, simply including them in a conversation does not raise an attorney-client confidentiality shield.
This is explicitly something Google has been found having done, and been told it won't work. Generally speaking, if the lawyer's input is not requested, and the lawyer does not respond, the attempt to claim it's privileged will be thrown out.
Here is the DOJ accusing Google of that exactly, a year ago, related to the same case: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/03/google-routinely...
Here is the DOJ accusing Google of that exactly, a year ago, related to the same case: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/03/google-routinely...
Google’s legal training specifically says that this won’t work and don’t do it anyway.
What @vkou said. Just including the lawyer doesn't make it privileged.
> The Court has repeatedly asked Google why it never mentioned Chat until the issue became a substantial problem. It has not provided an explanation, which is worrisome, especially in light of its unlimited access to accomplished legal counsel, and its long experience with the duty of evidence preservation.
courts never stray "outside the case" but I wish they had said "...and google's long experience saving every scrap of information about everybody on the planet they can find, so weird they would delete this information"
ianal, but i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you. It's not the direct sanction against this behavior that is the worst part, but whatever the case is about going against you.
courts never stray "outside the case" but I wish they had said "...and google's long experience saving every scrap of information about everybody on the planet they can find, so weird they would delete this information"
ianal, but i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you. It's not the direct sanction against this behavior that is the worst part, but whatever the case is about going against you.
> i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you
This is the concept of "adverse inference", and Epic has indeed requested the court instruct the jury of this. However, at this time that hasn't been decided by the court.
This is the concept of "adverse inference", and Epic has indeed requested the court instruct the jury of this. However, at this time that hasn't been decided by the court.
The court might do more or (less likely, as I read the order) less than that in this case, having explicitly said it wants to see the state of play of evidence at the end of discovery before making a decision, and only ruling out “terminating sanctions” (i.e., summary judgement now against Google) at this point.
[deleted]
> courts never stray “outside the case”
They do, regularly, otherwise the entire concept of “obiter dictum” wouldn’t exist.
> ianal, but i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you.
The court can (rough summary of Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)
(1) Itself (in a bench trial), or by direction to the jury (in a jury trial), allow that to serve as the basis for adverse inference as you describe, or
(2) Simply direct a finding of fact against the party who does that (bypassing the jury, in a jury trial), or
(3) Strike any claims of the party at fault that the discovery touches on from the case entirely, or
(4) Dismiss the case (if the party is the plaintiff) or render summary judgement against the party (in any case),
(5) Treat the failure as a contempt of court and sanction it that, or
(6) any combination of those (and a few other things) that it thinks is appropriate.
They do, regularly, otherwise the entire concept of “obiter dictum” wouldn’t exist.
> ianal, but i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you.
The court can (rough summary of Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)
(1) Itself (in a bench trial), or by direction to the jury (in a jury trial), allow that to serve as the basis for adverse inference as you describe, or
(2) Simply direct a finding of fact against the party who does that (bypassing the jury, in a jury trial), or
(3) Strike any claims of the party at fault that the discovery touches on from the case entirely, or
(4) Dismiss the case (if the party is the plaintiff) or render summary judgement against the party (in any case),
(5) Treat the failure as a contempt of court and sanction it that, or
(6) any combination of those (and a few other things) that it thinks is appropriate.
> i think when a court finds you have deleted evidence, that the information deleted is assumed to be evidence against you
This is why Alex Jones lost his civil actions: he was so intransigent about refusing to produce evidence that the judge determined he was guilty.
This is why Alex Jones lost his civil actions: he was so intransigent about refusing to produce evidence that the judge determined he was guilty.
Also when his lawyer accidentally provided the evidence it showed he was guilty.
That was during the judgment (penalty?) phase. Jones had already been found guilty in a prior proceeding.
A teachable moment for legal education.
More plaintext summary at Ars for those looking for the Cliff Notes version: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/judge-finds-goog...
This pertains both to the lawsuit from Epic Games as well as from the Department of Justice.
This pertains both to the lawsuit from Epic Games as well as from the Department of Justice.
The disappearing chat messages were a pain in the ass for employees too.
there's a group to join to enable history by default.
This doesn't work when someone else outside of the group initiates a conversation.
It's a fantastic feature; meaning I am never distracted on a European Monday morning by what someone sent me on an American Friday afternoon. ;)
It's a fantastic feature; meaning I am never distracted on a European Monday morning by what someone sent me on an American Friday afternoon. ;)
It still has a timeout, just a longer one, and there's some caveat about the other side sending first that I forget. The only solid solution is to discuss everything in a space instead of a regular group/1:1 chat.
And even that has a timeout, just a much longer one.
"The disappearing chat messages were a pain in the ass for employees too."
This disappearing chat messages are a pain in the ass for employees, but they were a pain in the ass for employees too.
This disappearing chat messages are a pain in the ass for employees, but they were a pain in the ass for employees too.
Used past tense cause I quit (not cause of that), also cause after a while people got used to it and found workarounds.
It’s a Mitch Hedberg joke.
"Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful"... Except when it makes us look bad.
with all this multiverse stuff... I suppose only whomever is part of google's universe can access it now. the rest are now in the "multiverse".
Typical.
Google: Remembering the number and types of pets we think you may own, for decades, but quietly destroying information about ourselves in a process consistent with how that information is classified under our recently updated data retention policy.
Google: Remembering the number and types of pets we think you may own, for decades, but quietly destroying information about ourselves in a process consistent with how that information is classified under our recently updated data retention policy.
It's a useful reminder not to pay attention to legal commentary from HN, most of the comments were saying that Google did nothing wrong w.r.t. these messages.
To be fair nearly all those comments gave arguments about what the law ought be, not about what it actually was. Those two things shouldn't be confused regardless of who is arguing them.
The relevant bit of law says:
"If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it"
The argument revolved around whether transient chats are "stored" or not. The judge says yes for chats, but doesn't mention phone calls. The comments pointed out that there's no reason not to extend the same argument to phone or video calls, or perhaps in an extreme interpretation any communication transiently picked up by a device that could have theoretically recorded it e.g. an IoT smart speaker that listens for commands.
The judgement also says:
The Committee Notes for Subdivision (e) state that the rule embodies the “common-law duty” of “potential litigants . . . to preserve relevant information when litigation is reasonably foreseeable.”
Well that's a problem and a half. So now this obligation to record everything previously considered transient doesn't only trigger once you are actually being sued. It applies even before you are sued, if a judge thinks that the litigation was "reasonably foreseeable" which could mean almost anything.
"If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it"
The argument revolved around whether transient chats are "stored" or not. The judge says yes for chats, but doesn't mention phone calls. The comments pointed out that there's no reason not to extend the same argument to phone or video calls, or perhaps in an extreme interpretation any communication transiently picked up by a device that could have theoretically recorded it e.g. an IoT smart speaker that listens for commands.
The judgement also says:
The Committee Notes for Subdivision (e) state that the rule embodies the “common-law duty” of “potential litigants . . . to preserve relevant information when litigation is reasonably foreseeable.”
Well that's a problem and a half. So now this obligation to record everything previously considered transient doesn't only trigger once you are actually being sued. It applies even before you are sued, if a judge thinks that the litigation was "reasonably foreseeable" which could mean almost anything.
And for a good reason: the new Restrict act that bans private digital E2E communication in US gives unprecedented level of power to the US government.
Ah, the stodgy old "only ever discuss things with experts" advice.
No, more like "don't listen to smug programmers when they tell you they have a foolproof strategy for beating the legal system that relies purely on technology."
More that no one is as smart as the average HN user thinks they are.
How's this working out for them?
https://abc.xyz/investor/other/code-of-conduct/
Doesn't seem like the transformation from "don't be evil" hit its intended ethics target.
https://abc.xyz/investor/other/code-of-conduct/
Doesn't seem like the transformation from "don't be evil" hit its intended ethics target.
> At any given time, Google has thousands of employees who are under a litigation hold for document preservation.
Crazy, it's an order of magnitude more than I'd guess.
> Lim testified that the thought process that he might need to save something that was said because he was subject to a legal hold simply “doesn’t occur because, as I said, I’m under so many legal holds, it’s impossible to think that way.”
This is also a crazy thing to say. But I guess I misunderstand something here, just before that it says that he did try to save _something_ copying it into docs etc and the problem is that he wasn't saving _everything_.
Crazy, it's an order of magnitude more than I'd guess.
> Lim testified that the thought process that he might need to save something that was said because he was subject to a legal hold simply “doesn’t occur because, as I said, I’m under so many legal holds, it’s impossible to think that way.”
This is also a crazy thing to say. But I guess I misunderstand something here, just before that it says that he did try to save _something_ copying it into docs etc and the problem is that he wasn't saving _everything_.
I think he meant that he can't spend his whole life reviewing every document he touches against every legal hold he is under. And if it's so important, management should be automatically saving everything.
Google must have thought the court was a customer.
Even so, the principle of proportionality demands that the remedy fit the wrong, and the Court would like to see the state of play of the evidence at the end of fact discovery. At that time, plaintiffs will be better positioned to tell the Court what might have been lost in the Chat communications.
No sanctions for now.
No sanctions for now.
So will they be fined or have some other punishment? Or maybe there will be a future hearing to determine that?
Yes, it's at the end of the document. Penalties will be assessed once fact discovery is complete. Monetary damages of legal costs related to this issue are to be presented to the court by the plaintiff.
The other thing is that if the judge or prosecutor puts tech on legal holds on particular people or departments, then all systems must be able to stop deletion.
Also, how does anyone get work done at Google if their chat continually erases itself?
Also, how does anyone get work done at Google if their chat continually erases itself?
How does anyone get work done if their spoken conversations are never recorded in the first place?
Using chat as a knowledge base is living in a spam swamp.
Using chat as a knowledge base is living in a spam swamp.
Never write something on internal chat that could end up in court or seen by grandma on the news.
If you want to have watercooler discussions, make a Session or Signal channel.
If you want to have watercooler discussions, make a Session or Signal channel.
It's worth it b/c corporations only get penalized with measly fines
henriquez(4)
I’ve often thought that when a company, especially one as big as Alphabet/Google, gets fined, it’s simply seen as an operating cost and not as a motivator to do better.
The reason that banks generally take AMLAT rules so seriously is that the fines are vastly higher than any profit that can be generated by breaking them. Where I live they're in the order of up to a million per transaction that violates the rules.
CBA in Australia was fined $700 million and Westpac $1.3 billion for mere tens of thousands of transactions that were in breach. They have spent a lot of time and money fixing their shit since then, unsurprisingly.
Fines that punch through to individuals are another great motivator. Health and safety rules suddenly started getting taken a great deal more seriously in my neck of the woods when managers became personally liable for up to $200,000 for breaches.
CBA in Australia was fined $700 million and Westpac $1.3 billion for mere tens of thousands of transactions that were in breach. They have spent a lot of time and money fixing their shit since then, unsurprisingly.
Fines that punch through to individuals are another great motivator. Health and safety rules suddenly started getting taken a great deal more seriously in my neck of the woods when managers became personally liable for up to $200,000 for breaches.
Clearly fines aren't sufficiently high. I think we need to scale them with revenue. Like towards 25-50%. Maybe with some payment plan if needed taking money from employer/executive bonuses, stock buybacks and dividends until it is paid with full interest.
So do the execs at google. And what is "better" anyway? Morality won't pay the bills.. Engineering society to do whatever it is you want society to do is good business however.
You'd hope this is where government and its legislative arm would step in to speak up for the 'citizens' but in fact, government is just the other wing of the same bird.
You'd hope this is where government and its legislative arm would step in to speak up for the 'citizens' but in fact, government is just the other wing of the same bird.
Random thought people say you can't put a corporation in jail.
Well they're wrong. You could sentence the board to serve a stint in jail. Or management. Or even everyone that works there.
Want to talk about lighting a fire under people.
Well they're wrong. You could sentence the board to serve a stint in jail. Or management. Or even everyone that works there.
Want to talk about lighting a fire under people.
That would be great, but it's hard to see this ever happening in America.
I look at so many issues in the US... the East Palistine train derailment and SVB bank... and wish that would actually happen (to sr mgt and boards) in practice.
What's in play here is not a fine, but courtroom sanctions that potentially hurt their case.
For example, the most powerful remedy Epic has asked from the court is "adverse inference", which would mean that the judge tells the jury that instead of judging the case on the basis of evidence presented by both parties, they should consider absence of evidence to be in favor of Epic. This can be quite devastating for your case.
For example, the most powerful remedy Epic has asked from the court is "adverse inference", which would mean that the judge tells the jury that instead of judging the case on the basis of evidence presented by both parties, they should consider absence of evidence to be in favor of Epic. This can be quite devastating for your case.
if it were possible to do so (if they were a human) they would be put in jail
but that would mean nobody can use google anymore cuz they're in jail
but that would mean nobody can use google anymore cuz they're in jail
It's not "Google" (corporations don't exist in the physical world, so they can't act in it), it was specific people at Google who destroyed evidence or lied to court.
Perhaps the solution then is to identify every individual who chose to keep chat history off despite awareness of the litigation hold (particularly those where evidence exists here showing it was an intentional choice), charge them with contempt of court, and put them in jail for a year or so. It's a crime, you can get jail time for it, and if you do it enough times, people will pay attention to it.
brutusurp(1)
Then why does "Google" get tax benefits and not individuals?
Why do corporation pay taxes is a good question in the first place. The same income is taxed twice - at corporate level first, and then when dividends are paid out (or, in case of buybacks, when shareholders give back their shares to Google in exchange for the profit that was already taxed). From what I've seen at my very cursory look at taxation policy textbooks, the official policy is that taxes don't have to make sense or be fair. They just have to be accepted enough by the population to not stir up trouble, and raise enough money for state to function. Hence the double taxation of corporate profits.
Let's imagine that I, without acting as a business, took income for work and then paid other people to do the work. All of that income would get double taxed, not just the profit. Corporations get a huge tax benefit compared to individuals. Imagine if you could deduct cost of living from your income tax.
Also a lot of that money only gets taxed the second time as capital gains, so while it's taxed twice it's two very discount taxes.
Also a lot of that money only gets taxed the second time as capital gains, so while it's taxed twice it's two very discount taxes.
But when things go right, Google reaps most of the benefits, individuals just get a small piece of the pie. But when things go wrong, you want to blame the individuals instead of the group?
It's the American way.
He left Russia for freedom and the American way, and he got Franz Kafka and Goldman Sachs. - Flash Boys
What does it mean when "Google reaps most of the benefits"? How does that manifest if not as individual gain?
I'm pretty sure those with equity in google get exactly what google makes redistributed to them, minus taxes and whatever they choose to reinvest in the company.
Not Google. Owners of Google - so, specific people again.
It is Google and inside Google some specific individuals. Corporations are part of the society and their capital is its representation.
Corporations have to be liable and whoever takes benefits has to take this.
Corporations have to be liable and whoever takes benefits has to take this.
Yeah, side note we need corporate death penalty
Antitrust is akin to this, with corporations being split into much smaller and way less powerful entities - it happened to AT&T, and Microsoft was close to getting sentenced as well in 1990s.
Isn't that what happened to SVB?
No, SVB failed as a result of a bank run. What OP is suggesting is more akin to Arthur Andersen after Enron.
That was more like a public lynching
Individuals need to be punished if they do something evil.
It's too easy to hide behind your corporation/business when your company ends up doing some serious environmental disaster.
It's too easy to hide behind your corporation/business when your company ends up doing some serious environmental disaster.
Google the company shouldn't be used as a mask for individual Google employees. If you find that employees are being used as scapegoats for companies, it's an indication that you haven't moved high enough in the org chart with your indictments.
A few bad apples. A few bad cops. A few bad prison guards.
Everyone is guilty of something. So is no one guilty of anything?
Everyone is guilty of something. So is no one guilty of anything?
The last part goes:
If everyone is guilty of something then politics and power decide who gets punished.
If everyone is guilty of something then politics and power decide who gets punished.
Reminds of the infamous Mitt Romney quote "Corporations are people".
The point of a corporation is to be a legal person that is considered as a physical person in various ways for purposes of a lawsuit.
That's literally why it has the Latin root corp, meaning body, in the name.
That's literally why it has the Latin root corp, meaning body, in the name.
What’s funny about this take is I can’t tell if it’s super leftist and “lock up the bankers” or super capitalist and “we will never know show did this”.
Schrödinger's Comment
Schrödinger's Comment
Corporations don't exist in the physical world, so they can't act in it
They very much exist in the legal world, and are accountable for the actions of employees acting under their direction.
According to, you know, those fussy pieces of paper that their owners signed (and presumably read) when they agreed to incorporate.
They very much exist in the legal world, and are accountable for the actions of employees acting under their direction.
According to, you know, those fussy pieces of paper that their owners signed (and presumably read) when they agreed to incorporate.
Corporations are responsible for the actions of those they employ.
If google publishes an option to press a button to violate the law to its employees, they are responsible for those that chose to click it.
If google publishes an option to press a button to violate the law to its employees, they are responsible for those that chose to click it.
Items 30-32 (from p. 9) seem pretty significant. Basically, other stuff like Gmail automatically went on litigation hold (where records are preserved), but Chat didn't. Google did warn employee about the problem with this and told them not to use Chat for any topics subject to litigation hold. But they left it up to employees to actually do that.
And, very predictably, of course they didn't. Whether it's because they were careless, unaware, intentionally trying to hide things is another question. Regardless, it was an arrangement that basically guaranteed this sort of problem would happen.
And, very predictably, of course they didn't. Whether it's because they were careless, unaware, intentionally trying to hide things is another question. Regardless, it was an arrangement that basically guaranteed this sort of problem would happen.
> Google left employees largely on their own to determine what Chat communications might be relevant to the many critical legal and factual issues in this complex antitrust litigation.
All true. I'm just glad I wasn't subpoena'ed.
"Off the record" on a chat was often interpreted as "anything goes" including by people who should have known better. It should not have been, and I definitely heard lawyers say "if it's something you wouldn't want to come out in court, then don't say it via the computer, whether it's on OR off the record."