You are here
Google's Growing Record of Obstruction of Justice
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2012-06-21 17:09
The Texas Attorney General's civil suit against Google seeking a court order to compel Google to comply with its antitrust investigation subpoenas is sadly just the latest example of Google's growing record of obstruction of justice. The combination of Google's exceptionally long rap sheet and its growing record of obstructing justice documented below, sends the public the message that Google has much to hide.
- 2012: Google asserts attorney-client priviledge for communications involving no lawyers, in failing to comply with the State of Texas Attorney General's Civil Investigation Demands (subpoenas).
- 2012: UK reopens its Street View WiSpy investigation upon learning from an FCC investigation that Google's official assurances to UK investigators to get the UK to drop its investigation in 2010 -- were not true.
- 2012: Google is fined by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission for "impeding and delaying" its Street View WiSpy wiretapping investigation, which ultimately prevented the FCC from determining if U.S. wiretapping law had been broken or not.
- 2012: Google faces a maximum fine from the South Korean Federal Trade Commission for systematically obstructing its antitrust investigation of Google when Google employees deleted files and ordered employees not to go to work, but work from home.
- 2011: The U.S. Department of Justice stated in its $500m criminal forfeiture penalty enforcement action against Google, that Google, over a period of seven years, repeatedly ignored law enforcement warnings that Google was knowingly engaged in advertising practices that facilitated the "unsafe and unlawful importation of prescription drugs" into the U.S. The U.S. Attorney leading the investigation said publicly that the evidence was clear that current Google CEO "Larry Page knew what was going on."
- 2010: Three Google executives never appeared before an Italian court to hear charges of violating the privacy of a disabled boy who was repeatedly shown being bullied on YouTube. The three were found guilty in absentia.
For those seeking more evidence of this problem, please see: