Google Agrees to Forfeit $500 Million: What Does This Mean for Affiliate Marketers?

Google Agrees to Forfeit $500 Million: What Does This Mean for Affiliate Marketers?

August 29, 2011

Google Agrees to Forfeit $500 Million: What Does This Mean for Affiliate Marketers?

By: Jeff Ifrah

In an unusual and little-noticed recent settlement, Google Inc. has agreed to pay a forfeiture of $500 million because it permitted Canadian pharmacies to advertise to United States consumers on its site using Google AdWords, resulting in the illegal sale of prescription drugs through online channels into the United States between 2003 and 2009.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced this agreement on August 24, 2011, in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations and the Attorney General of Rhode Island.

The government said that this forfeiture represents the gross revenue received by Google as a result of Canadian pharmacies advertising through Google’s AdWords program, plus the gross revenue made by Canadian pharmacies from their sales to U.S. consumers.

Although Canada has its own system of regulation of pharmaceuticals, Canadian pharmacies that ship drugs outside that nation are not subject to that system, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regards those shipments into the United States as generally illegal since they don’t comply with its regulations regarding labeling, distribution, and the use of a valid prescription.

What is most unusual here is that Google agreed to pay the forfeiture – even though its role was simply to accept advertising by Canadian pharmacies and to turn a blind eye to the legal problems. According to the government, Google did so from 2003 through 2009, when it learned of the investigation and took a number of steps to prevent the unlawful sale of prescription drugs by online pharmacies, including Canadian pharmacies, to U.S. consumers.

Last March, we asked the question, “Does Google Need to Police Its Ads for Fraud?” when Consumer Watchdog asked whether Google should be held legally responsible for deceptive advertisements placed on its site by mortgage rescue companies. This forfeiture agreement puts Google – and others in its position – on notice that they may need to account for their actions in connection with potentially illegal advertising.

It may go even further. A blog that covers the affiliate marketing community has noted: “For affiliate marketers, the Google and Justice Department settlement has serious consequences. There are many opportunities to partner with products or services online that may or may not be entirely legal.”

In fact, this settlement may have significant effects on the affiliate marketing community. Does each affiliate marketer that places an ad on a website, or simply permits an ad to go on a website, need to check the accuracy and truthfulness of the ad, or risk a major fine? This is at the very least a question that affiliate marketers need to concern themselves with.

Jeff Ifrah

Jeff Ifrah

Considered one of the world’s foremost attorneys in online gaming and gambling law, Jeff Ifrah is regarded as a trusted advisor to online gaming businesses looking to successfully start, operate and grow. His legal knowledge and record of success have also earned him international recognition as a white-collar criminal defense lawyer and litigator. He is an advocate keenly focused on delivering results for his clients – on understanding the problems they face and developing innovative strategies to resolve them.

Related Practice(s)
Other Posts
CFPB’s First Case: Consent Order Against Capital One for Deceptive Marketing
Jul 20, 2012

CFPB’s First Case: Consent Order Against Capital One for Deceptive Marketing

By: Michelle Cohen
In Time for Bikini Season, Kardashians Face Lawsuit Over Endorsement of Diet Aids
Jul 6, 2012

In Time for Bikini Season, Kardashians Face Lawsuit Over Endorsement of Diet Aids

By: Nicole Kardell
High Court Tosses Out Indecency Cases, Finds FCC Didn’t Give Proper Notice to Broadcasters
Jun 22, 2012

High Court Tosses Out Indecency Cases, Finds FCC Didn’t Give Proper Notice to Broadcasters

By: Michelle Cohen
Domain Names Go Creative: Will We Soon See Dot-Poker?
Jun 13, 2012

Domain Names Go Creative: Will We Soon See Dot-Poker?

By: Ifrah Law

Subscribe to Ifrah Law’s Insights