“Google and Facebook would have you believe that they are different from other corporations,” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director. “They are not. They are following the corrupt corporate tradition in Washington: buying what you want.”

Lobby disclosures filed this week with the House of Representatives showed Google spent $4.18 million, in the third quarter, a 76 percent increase from $ 2.38 million in the comparable 2011 period. For the first nine months Google’s total lobbying spending hit a record $13.1 million. Google spent $9.68 million in all of 2011.

Facebook spent nearly a million dollars, $980,000, topping the $960,000 spent the previous quarter and 172 percent above the $360,000 spent in the third quarter of 2011. For the first three quarters of the year, Facebook has spent almost $2.6 million, compared to $910,000 during the comparable 2011 period.

Go to the House of Representatives Lobbying Disclosure Database here: http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx

Other tech company lobbying in the third quarter included:

– Apple spent $460,000, the same amount as the previous year.

– Amazon spent $550,000 compared to $450,000 in the third quarter of 2011

– Microsoft spent $1.86 million, down slightly from $1.88 million in 2011

- 30 -

Visit our website at www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

Google’s disappointing third quarter results were posted by a contractor to the Securities and Exchange Commission before Google intended.  The stock plunged nearly 10 percent and Google asked for trading to be suspended.

“Now CEO Larry Page really knows what it’s like to have your private data made public before you wanted it out there,” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director. “He ought to think long and hard about that, because his company violates the privacy of millions of its users daily.”

Google’s entire business model is based on amassing digital dossiers about its users and selling ads against them. You are Google’s product, not its customer, Consumer Watchdog noted.

“Google users don’t have the right to say no to disclosure of their information. They cannot stop the trading of such information, the way Google asked to suspend trading its stock,” said Simpson.

Google says its mission is to organize the world’s information and make it accessible, Consumer Watchdog said.

“The oracle of transparency should take heed of what it means to be bitten by information you don’t yet want public,” Simpson said. “Google’s founders should now know what it feels like to have private information become public and give all users the right to suspend public trading of the their data through a meaningful Do Not Track Option.”

- 30 -

Visit our Website at www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

SANTA MONICA, CA – Consumer Watchdog today praised the European data commissioners for rebuking Google’s unilateral merging of privacy policies and data across its various product lines and called on the Federal Trade Commission to act to protect U.S. consumers.

“Google acted in complete disregard for legitimate privacy concerns,” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director. “I am glad that the European Union is calling out their abuses, but am disappointed that American consumers must look across the Atlantic to see privacy rights defended.  The FTC should move on this as well.”

Last January Google announced it would, effective last March 1, combine data gathered through different services that it had previously kept separate, without letting consumers agree to the new data uses. At the time Jacob Kohnstamm, chairman of the Article 29 Working Party, an association of the data commissioners from the European Union, wrote Google CEO Larry Page seeking to postpone the changes, while they studied their impact.  Google refused and implemented the changes March 1.

The French data protection authority, the CNIL, was charged by the Working Party with determining if the law was broken. Meanwhile, in the United States 36 states attorneys general also expressed concerns about the changes.

Today European data protection authorities told Google to clarify the new privacy policy and make it easier for users to opt out of it because of concerns that the Internet giant is collecting too much data and holding it for too long.

CNIL said Google would have three or four months to comply with the data authorities’ recommendations.  The company would likely face fines if they do not.

Google’s initial reaction was to stiff the regulators:

“Our new privacy policy demonstrates our long-standing commitment to protecting our users’ information and creating great products. We are confident that our privacy notices respect European law,” Peter Fleischer, global privacy counsel at Google, said in a statement.

“Google’s Orwellian response demonstrates the Internet giant’s arrogance.  Google executives believe they always know what’s best for everybody and see no need to listen to regulators,” said Simpson.  “This approach will come back to haunt them.”

CNIL outlined three main concerns about the new privacy policy:

– It’s not clear enough in explaining to users what data is collected and how it will be used.

– It’s too difficult for users to opt out of data collection and combination.

– Google doesn’t make clear how long it will retain data.

-30-

Visit Consumer Watchdog’s website at www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

SANTA MONICA, CA  – Consumer Watchdog has called on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to reject applications from Google and Amazon to buy control of huge swaths of the Internet by purchasing new generic Top Level Domains.

In an open letter to the ICANN Board and CEO, GAC Members, Evaluators, the Independent Objector and Members of the ICANN Community, John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director wrote:

“If these applications are granted, large parts of the Internet would be privatized and become walled gardens.”

ICANN plans to expand domain names beyond those that are familiar, like .com, .net and .org. Read Consumer Watchdog’s letter here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/ltricann092612.pdf

“We believe the plans by Google and Amazon are extremely problematic and call on you to deny their applications. It is one thing to use a Top Level Domain name that is associated with your brand name. In Google’s case that might be .Google or .YouTube or .Android. Similarly it makes sense for Amazon to acquire .Amazon or .Kindle. But, that is not what they are seeking,” wrote Simpson.

Consumer Watchdog noted Google, through its subsidiary Charleston Road Registry Inc., has ponied up $18.7 million in its application to buy 101 domain strings like .eat, .buy, .book, .free, .web, and .family. Amazon is close behind the Internet giant, applying for 76 domain strings including such names as .free,

“Both Google and Amazon are already dominant players on the Internet. Allowing them further control by buying generic domain strings even if they say they would operate some of them in an open manner would threaten the free and open Internet that consumers rely upon. Consumer Watchdog urges you not to grant these outrageous applications but rather ensure that the Internet continues its vibrant growth while serving the interests of all of its users,” the letter concluded.

- 30 -

Visit our website at www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

SB 1298 directs the Department of Motor Vehicles to write regulations covering robot cars by January 2015, but the Legislature didn’t require Google to come back for final approval before the driverless cars go from testing stage to the car lot.  The law, written by Sen. Alex Padilla, provides no real privacy protections, the nonpartisan, nonprofit group said.

“Substantial safety and liability questions remain,” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director.  “On the privacy issue, the law gives the user no control over what data will be gathered and how the information will be used.”

Consumer Watchdog said that there is little question that driverless car technology will become a reality.  The problem is the way the Legislature and Governor rushed to endorse the technology without considering its ramifications.

“What this demonstrates more than anything else is Google’s ability to dazzle and get is way,” said Simpson.  “The governor and many legislators have been taken for a ride by Google – and I don’t just mean in the Internet giant’s driverless test vehicles.”

The last time Sacramento moved so quickly on such an extraordinary technological policy shift was over electricity deregulation, which ended with unprecedented massive blackouts engineered by energy pirates like Enron, Consumer Watchdog said.

The time to ensure that the new driverless car technology has the necessary safety and privacy protections is while it is being designed and developed, Consumer Watchdog said.  Trying to catch up after a new technology is developed and broadly implemented simply will not work.

“Google has repeatedly demonstrated that it only pays lip service to privacy concerns and repeatedly violated consumers’ privacy,” said Simpson. “Consumers must have the right to give opt-in consent before any data gathered through driverless car technology is used for any purpose other than driving the vehicle.”

- 30 -

Visit our webstite at www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

SAN FRANCISCO – The Federal Trade Commission’s proposed $22.5 million settlement with Google for hacking past privacy settings on Apple’s Safari browser fails to include a permanent injunction against violating its “Buzz” Consent Decree with the Commission, one of three reasons it be should be rejected, Consumer Watchdog said today.

The failure to include the injunction in the proposed settlement is particularly noteworthy because the FTC complaint filed with the proposed settlement asks for one, Consumer Watchdog said.

“Without an injunction, the FTC has very little leverage to assure Google’s future compliance with the Buzz decree,” the nonpartisan, nonprofit group said in court papers filed late Friday afternoon. “The failure to seek an injunction also limits the FTC’s flexibility with regard to civil monetary penalties in the future…  Simply put, the absence of a permanent injunction gives Google little reason to take the Buzz decree seriously.”

Judge U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston last month granted Consumer Watchdog amicus curiae status to oppose the settlement.   Attorneys Gary Reback and Robert J. Yorio of the law firm Carr & Ferrell represent Consumer Watchdog.

In addition to failing to include a permanent injunction the settlement should not be approved because the amount of the penalty is too small and it allows Google to explicitly deny wrongdoing, Consumer Watchdog’s brief said.

Consumer Watchdog’s legal brief also outlined how over the past two years government efforts to make Google respect the privacy of Internet users have largely been ineffective.

The FTC has charged that Google violated the “Buzz Consent Agreement” when Google claimed it was honoring privacy settings on iPads, iPhones and other devices using the Safari browser but in fact it was circumventing them.

“At issue in this case is whether this Court will lend its imprimatur to a settlement proposal so markedly deficient that it fails to meet the relevant legal standards of ‘adequacy’ and furthering ‘the public interest.’ The proposed settlement fails on three distinct grounds,” said Consumer Watchdog’s brief.

Read a copy of Consumer Watchdog’s brief here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/consumerwatchdogftcgoog092112.pdf

“Google executives want to buy their way out of trouble with what for them is pocket change and then deny doing anything wrong. The day the proposed settlement was announced the value of Google outstanding stock increased more than the fine, ” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director. “As our brief makes clear, Google has demonstrated an ability to out maneuver government regulators repeatedly and ride roughshod over the privacy rights of consumers.  Google continues to be disingenuous about its practices.”

The brief argues:

“Given Google’s history of failing to either respect the privacy of its users or even to comply with its prior privacy undertakings, and, given the Commission’s repeatedly ineffectual attempts to secure compliance, what facts and what plausible reasoning based on those facts justify the Commission’s decision, even under a deferential judicial standard?

“The record now before this Court fails to provide any basis on which the Court might evaluate the Commission’s rationale, much less defer to it.  And, given the glaring deficiencies – deficiencies that squarely undermine the Commission’s stated rationale, we submit that the Commission cannot make the requisite showing under the appropriate legal standard to justify entry of the proposed order.”

The brief’s Statement of Facts reviewed four areas of privacy concerns about Google:

– Wi-Spy: In the Wi-Spy scandal (2010), Google repeatedly said it did not copy confidential data, but government investigations in Europe proved this false.  Yet the FTC took no action and closed its superficial investigation based on Google’s representations of modest changes in Google’s privacy practices.

– Google Buzz: In the Buzz scandal (2010), the FTC sought no real remedy for Google violating its own privacy policy and publishing users’ confidential information.  The most the FTC got Google to agree to was a “comprehensive privacy program” and a commitment not to make false privacy promises to users.

– Combining Personal Information: In 2012, Google announced that it was combining users’ personal information from all of its services to better track users online.  European countries initiated investigations, many of which are still open today.  But the FTC did nothing.

– Safari Hacking: Now the FTC proposes to settle Google’s latest privacy transgression when it hacked around privacy settings on the iPhone, iPad and other devices that use the Safari browser.  Google violated the promises it made to settle the Buzz fiasco, but the FTC only proposes a fine that amounts to less than one one-thousandth of Google’s revenue from advertising fees.  Even the FTC’s formal statement indicates that the size of the penalty “can be dismissed as insufficient.”

The following are two key arguments from the brief:

The Proposed Order Fails to Include a Sufficient Civil Penalty

“…[I]n response to criticism that the $22.5 million penalty constituted an ineffective deterrent, the FTC staff (in its Facebook chat) claimed that the risk of bad publicity would deter Google from future violations, even if the paltry fine did not. ‘Deterrence is based on more than money alone,’ stated the staff.  ‘Google is paying with black eyes as well as greenbacks.’ We can scarcely imagine how a company that showed little shame at facilitating the illegal importation of drugs would be deterred at the prospect of bad publicity from violating an FTC privacy order.  At bottom, then, the Commission offers no rational basis to permit this Court to conclude that the size of its fine here or the prospect of future fines achieves either the purpose of § 45(l) or the Commission’s stated purpose in this case.”

The Proposed Order Is Deficient in Including a Denial of Liability.

“Because the FTC permitted Google to deny the allegations of the FTC complaint, Google put its own ‘spin’ on the facts – both initially at the time of the Wall Street Journal story and thereafter, when the settlement was announced.  Google’s spin created considerable confusion in the public over what the company actually did, who was at fault, whether the conduct really violated the Buzz decree, and what the effect of the conduct was on consumers. As a consequence, consumers lack important information they should have gotten from this case to make informed choices regarding online conduct.  A decree that results in consumer confusion and produces the strong possibility if not the likelihood of consumer injury cannot possibly meet the public interest standard.”

Consumer Watchdog had filed a complaint in February about Google violating the “Buzz Consent Agreement” with the FTC after it was revealed how Google was circumventing privacy settings on Apple’s Safari browser.

“Google hacked past a key privacy setting on iPhones and iPads and other devices using Apple’s Safari browser, placed tracking cookies on them and then lied, saying the settings were still effective,” said Simpson. “Clearly it violated its agreement with the Commission. The FTC must hold Google executives accountable for their unlawful actions and not let them make a mockery of the agency.”

- 30 -

Visit Consumer Watchdog’s website at www.ConsumerWatchdog.org. Carr & Ferrell’s website is: http://www.carrferrell.com

WASHINGTON, DC – Consumer Watchdog today urged Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D –W.VA) to block attempts by Google and Amazon to buy control of huge swaths of the Internet by purchasing new generic Top Level Domains through the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

In a letter to Sen. Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director wrote:

“If these applications are granted, large parts of the Internet would be privatized.  It is one thing to own a domain associated with your brand, but it is a huge problem to take control of generic strings. Both Google and Amazon are already dominant players on the Internet. Allowing them further control by buying generic domain strings would threaten the free and open Internet that consumers rely upon.”

ICANN plans to expand domain names beyond those that are familiar, like .com, .net and .org. Rockefeller has urged the organization to move ahead with the plan “slowly and cautiously,” warning:  “The potential for fraud, consumer confusion and cybersquatting is massive and argues for a phased-in implementation.”

Read Consumer Watchdog’s letter here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/ltrrockefeller091912.pdf

“We believe the plans by Google and Amazon are extremely problematic and call on you to help prevent their implementation.  It is one thing to use a Top Level Domain name that is associated with your brand name.  In Google’s case that might be .Google or .YouTube or .Android.  Similarly it makes make sense for Amazon to acquire .Amazon or .Kindle.  But, that is not what is happening,” wrote Simpson.

Consumer Watchdog noted that Google has ponied up $18.7 million to buy 101 domain strings like .eat, .buy, .book, .free, .web, and .family. Amazon is close behind the Internet giant applying for 76 domain strings including such names as .free, .like, .game, and .shop.

“Consumer Watchdog urges you to do all that you can to thwart these outrageous efforts and ensure that the Internet continues its vibrant growth while serving the interests of all of its users,” the letter concluded.

- 30 -

Visit our website at www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

SANTA MONICA, CA – California Gov. Jerry Brown should veto a bill that allows Google’s driverless cars on the highway because it does not provide adequate privacy protections for users of the new technology, Consumer Watchdog said today.

In a letter to Gov. Brown Consumer Watchdog Privacy Project Director John M. Simpson wrote SB 1298 “is completely insufficient.  It gives the user no control over what data will be gathered and how the information will be used.”

SB 1298, was authored by Sen. Alex Padilla, was passed unanimously by the Senate. Read Consumer Watchdog’s letter to Gov. Brown here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/ltrbrown070912.pdf

“A law regulating autonomous vehicles must provide that driverless cars gather only the data necessary to operate the vehicle and retain that data only as long as necessary for the vehicle’s operation,” wrote Simpson. “It should provide that the data must not be used for any additional purpose such as marketing or advertising without the consumer’s explicit opt-in consent.”

Consumer Watchdog said there are two reasons Google won’t endorse simple privacy protections for its self-driving cars:

– First, Google’s entire business model is based on building digital dossiers about our personal behavior and using them to sell the most personal advertising to us.  You’re not Google’s customer; you are its product – the one it sells to corporations willing to pay any price to reach you.  Will the driverless technology be just about getting us from point to point or about tracking how we got there and what we did along the way?

– Second, computer engineers, who believe that more data is always better, are in charge at Google.  They may not know what they would use data for today, but they think they may someday find a use for it and don’t want any restrictions on them now.

“Consumers enthusiastically adopted the new technology of the Internet.  What we were not told was that our use of the Information Superhighway would be monitored and tracked in order to personalize corporate marketing and make Google a fortune,” wrote Simpson. “Now that Google is taking to the freeways, we must prevent inappropriate collection and storage of data about our personal movements and environment before we allow Google’s robots to take to the roads and report back to the Googleplex.”

The letter expressed concern that Google cannot be trusted to handle our data nor to respect our privacy:

“You may remember the last time Google deployed high tech vehicles around the world.  The result was Wi-Spy, the biggest wire-tapping scandal in history when the company’s Street View cars sucked up data from tens of millions of private Wi-Fi networks, including emails, health information, banking information, passwords and other data.

“Citing its “Don’t Be Evil” motto, Google claims it can be trusted with our information.  Facts show otherwise.  Recently the FCC released documents showing the Wi-Spy scandal was not a mistake or the work of one rogue engineer, as the company had claimed; but was part of the Street View design. The Commission fined Google $25,000 for obstructing its investigation.  In the latest Wi-Spy development Google has just admitted that it had retained the ill-gotten data it pledged to delete almost two years ago.

“Last month the Federal Trade Commission imposed a $22.5 million penalty on Google for violating a consent agreement and hacking around privacy settings on Apple’s Safari browser, which is used on iPads and iPhones. Simply put, there is no reason to trust or believe Google when it claims to be concerned about privacy.”

In response to privacy concerns the Legislature made this amendment that Consumer Watchdog called completely inadequate:

(h) The manufacturer of the autonomous technology installed on a vehicle shall provide a written disclosure to the purchaser of an autonomous vehicle that describes what information is collected by the autonomous technology equipped on the vehicle.

“The time to ensure that this new driverless car technology has the necessary privacy protections is while it is being designed and developed.   This is a concept known as ‘Privacy by Design.’ It means privacy issues are considered from the very beginning and solutions are ‘baked in,’” wrote Simpson. “Trying to catch up after a new technology is developed and broadly implemented simply will not work.  Google has demonstrated that it only pays lip service to privacy concerns and repeatedly violated consumers’ privacy. That is why I call on you to veto SB 1298; consumers must give opt-in consent before any data gathered through driverless car technology is used for any purpose other than driving the vehicle.”

- 30 -

Visit our website at www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

“Google executives want to buy their way out of trouble with what for them is pocket change and then deny doing anything wrong,” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director. “Allowing this settlement undercuts the entire regulatory process. Companies and their executives must be held accountable when they violate legal agreements.”

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston gave attorneys for the nonpartisan, nonprofit public interest group until Sept. 21 to file an amicus, or friend of the court, brief opposing the settlement. In her order filed late Tuesday she said Google and the FTC would then have a week to respond. The judge said she would hold a hearing on Consumer Watchdog’s request after receiving all the legal papers if she decides it is necessary.

Read Judge Illston’s order here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/illstonorder082812.pdf

Attorneys Gary Reback and Robert J. Yorio, of the law firm Carr & Ferrell, filed the motion seeking amicus status to oppose the settlement in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on behalf of the nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest group.

Read Consumer Watchdog’s motion seeking amicus status here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/ftcgooglemotion082112.pdf

Consumer Watchdog said Wednesday that the proposed settlement is inadequate because it allows Google to deny that it violated an earlier privacy consent agreement. The FTC has charged that Google violated the “Buzz Consent Agreement” when Google claimed it was honoring privacy settings on iPads, iPhones and other devices using the Safari browser but in fact it was circumventing them.

“How can a settlement be in the public interest, when the guilty party gets to deny they did anything wrong?” asked Simpson.

Consumer Watchdog had filed a complaint in February about Google violating the “Buzz Consent Agreement” with the FTC after it was revealed how Google was circumventing privacy settings on Apple’s Safari browser.

“Google hacked past a key privacy setting on iPhones and iPads and other devices using Apple’s Safari browser, placed tracking cookies on them and then lied, saying the settings were still effective,” said Simpson. “Clearly it violated its agreement with the Commission. The FTC must hold Google executives accountable for their unlawful actions and not let them make a mockery of the agency.”

- 30 -

Visit Consumer Watchdog’s website at: http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org — Carr & Ferrell’s website is: http://www.carrferrell.com

The group told the FCC that technical speed standards for “4G” mobile technology are universally ignored by U.S. cell phone companies, which now promise “faster, 4G” speeds in virtually every advertisement, “either without actually making improvements to existing products and services or without disclosing the meaning of ‘faster.’”

“When it comes to advertising data speed, the cell phone marketplace is like the Wild West. We need the FCC to step up to its role of sheriff and set standards so people can comparison shop without being ripped off and then locked into a two year contract,” said Harvey Rosenfield, founder of Consumer Watchdog and one of the lawyers filing the petition. “The rules we propose will lasso the companies and hold them accountable for the information they are putting out there.”

The petition points to AT&T’s advertising of the iPhone 4S as an example of 4G/data speed marketplace abuse. The petition states:

“In January 2012, AT&T began marketing the iPhone 4S as being a 4G phone, even though Apple represents it as 3G — a fact that was reflected on the phone itself: when connected to the AT&T network, a ‘3G’ icon appeared on the screen. Then, in March 2012, the iPhone’s software was suddenly updated so the screen displayed a ‘4G’ icon. Nothing else about the phone or AT&T’s network had changed, yet AT&T immediately began an advertising campaign flaunting the phone’s improved, faster 4G speeds.”

“AT&T is constantly trying to fool people about having the latest technology. No consumer should be forced to rely solely on claims from a repeat corporate offender like AT&T when buying a new smartphone. The bottom line is that consumers need reliable information about mobile broadband performance,” said Laura Antonini, staff attorney for Consumer Watchdog.

The petition calls upon the FCC to adopt rules that would require wireless carriers to provide the following disclosures in advertisements making claims about data speed:

- Average data speeds that subscribers experience while using the advertised network or device within the city or area where such advertisement appears; and
- National average data speeds that subscribers experience while using the advertised network or device; and
- Average data speeds supporting any speed comparison made in the advertisement.

Additionally, the proposed rule should require wireless carriers to provide, at any point of sale, consumers with access to the following information:

- For every network that a wireless carrier operates, average data speeds that subscribers experience while using the network within each city or area covered by the network; and
- For every network that a wireless carrier operates, national average data speeds that subscribers experience while using the network; and
- For every mobile broadband device that a wireless carrier sells, average data speeds that subscribers experience while using the device within each city or area covered by the network; and
- For every mobile broadband device that a wireless carrier sells, national average data speeds that subscribers experience while using the device.

Read Consumer Watchdog’s Petition for Rulemaking with exhibits here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/cwd_petition_for_rulemaking_8-22-12.pdf

Read just the petition here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/cwd_fcc_brief_8-22-12.pdf

- 30 -

Visit our website at: www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

SAN FRANCISCO – Consumer Watchdog has filed a motion in U.S. District Court asking that it be allowed to oppose the $22.5 million settlement the Federal Trade Commission has reached with Google because the agreement allows the Internet giant to deny any wrongdoing.

Gary Reback and Robert J. Yorio, of the law firm Carr & Ferrell, filed the motion in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on behalf of the nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest group.

Consumer Watchdog said Wednesday that the settlement is inadequate because it allows Google to deny that it violated an earlier privacy consent agreement.  The FTC has charged that Google violated the “Buzz Consent Agreement” when Google claimed it was honoring privacy settings on iPads, iPhones and other devices using the Safari browser when in fact it was circumventing them.

“The Commission is proposing to let Google to buy its way out of trouble for an amount that is less than the company spends on lunches for its employees and with no admission it did anything wrong,” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director. “Corporations need to be held accountable when they willfully violate a consent agreement.”

The motion asks Judge Susan Illston to grant Consumer Watchdog friend-of-the-court status and allow the group to submit briefs opposing the settlement.  The motion also asks for a hearing on the proposed deal and asks that Consumer Watchdog be allowed to appear at the hearing.

Read Consumer Watchdog’s motion here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/ftcgooglemotion082112.pdf

The motion notes that Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch dissented from the agreement because the proposed settlement allows Google to deny any violation of its “Buzz Consent Agreement.”  He further argued that the proposed $22.5 million civil penalty does not justify the denial of liability because it is such a small amount of Google’s profit or revenues.

In making the motion to be granted amicus curiae status Consumer Watchdog’s brief said:

“The question of whether federal courts should accept consent settlements between government agencies and private companies in which the companies continue to deny liability is currently an issue in two other prominent pieces of litigation. Last year District Court Judge Rakoff of the Southern District of New York rejected a proposed stipulated order between the SEC and Citigroup because the record did not contain either an admission or denial of the allegations underlying the complaint. SEC v. Citigroup Global Mkts. Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 328 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). The Second Circuit subsequently stayed proceedings in Judge Rakoff’s court while it considers the parties’ appeal. (United States SEC v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc., 673 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2012)).”

“The FTC is also involved in a similar case. In FTC v. Circa Direct LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81878 (D.N.J. June 13, 2012), the district court has twice required the Commission to submit briefing on whether the FTC’s failure to obtain an admission of liability implicates the court’s public interest analysis.”

“The parties’ submissions here do not even acknowledge the controversy regarding the FTC’s action, much less direct this Court to the other matters in litigation. More importantly, however those other cases are resolved, the record here is unique in that the FTC is attempting to settle allegations of Google’s violation of an earlier Commission order without any acknowledgement liability. ‘In other words,’ wrote Commissioner Rosch, ‘the Commission charges Google with contempt,’ making its acceptance of Google’s denial of liability ‘all the more inexplicable.’”

“In the Circa Direct case, the FTC acknowledged that the appropriate standard of review in a case like this is whether the proposed settlement is ‘fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the public interest.’ Consumer Watchdog respectfully submits that it can aid this Court in making the appropriate evaluation.”

Consumer Watchdog had filed a complaint in February about Google violating the “Buzz Consent Agreement” with the FTC after it was revealed how Google was circumventing privacy settings on Apple’s Safari browser.

“Google hacked past a key privacy setting on iPhones and iPads and other devices using Apple’s Safari browser, placed tracking cookies on them and then lied, saying the settings were still effective,” said Simpson. “Clearly it violated its agreement with the FTC.”

- 30 -

Visit Consumer Watchdog’s website at www.ConsumerWatchdog.org — Carr & Ferrell’s website is http://www.carrferrell.com/

“There is a fundamental conflict between being a search provider and a content provider,” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project Director.  “As Google has increased its content and services, it has unfairly favored them in its search results and damaged competitors.”

A Consumer Watchdog study, Traffic Report: How Google is Squeezing out Competitors and Muscling Into New Markets, demonstrated how Google favors its own products and services in Universal Search. Read the study here: http://insidegoogle.com/2010/06/google-using-search-engine-to-muscle-into-internet-businesses-study-finds-2/

Google is under investigation for antitrust violations by the Federal Trade Commission, European Antitrust authorities, India, Brazil and Texas.  “With this deal Google executives are thumbing their noses at these regulators,” said Simpson.

“It makes absolutely no sense to approve this deal,” said Simpson. “And, if it is allowed with conditions, there is absolutely no reason to believe the Internet giant will live up to it’s word.”

Google has repeated demonstrated it does not honor its promises, Consumer Watchdog said.

“They were just fined a record $22.5 million by the FTC for violating a consent degree and hacking around privacy settings on iPhones, iPads and Apple computers,” said Simpson. “They were lying to consumers about what they were doing.”

The Department of Justice and the FTC alternate on examining acquisitions for antitrust concerns.  It’s not clear which agency would vet the Frommer’s deal.

“What’s important,” said Simpson, “is that it’s blocked.

- 30 -

Visit our website at: www.ConsumerWatchdog.org