4 ms·

I want FTC to put fear of god in bad actors like GoodRx. $1.5 million is pocket change for a company with $765 million annual revenue. They've spent $400k just

I want FTC to put fear of god in bad actors like GoodRx. $1.5 million is pocket change for a company with $765 million annual revenue. They've spent $400k just on lobbying. This isn't gonna change anything.

mulmen 4y ago
> I want FTC to put fear of god in bad actors like GoodRx. I’m not sure I do. The FTC does civil enforcement and investigation. They identify misbehavior and issue the equivalent of parking tickets. If you also give them the ability to issue punishments then what prevents the FTC from using that power to line their own pockets by sabotaging (or threaten to sabotage) well behaved companies? This penalty may not preclude lawsuits by GoodRx customers or further investigations by other organizations leading to criminal penalties. I’m not a lawyer so I could be totally off base here but this is my understanding after dozens of these HN threads with similar comments. > $1.5 million is pocket change for a company with $765 million annual revenue. Is it? GoodRx hasn’t turned a profit since 2019. They lost $32.8 million on $766.5 million in revenue in 2022.
- thfuran 4y ago
  But is there anything precluding them from re-issuing those parking tickets every day until the problem goes away?
  - mulmen 4y ago
    Well GoodRx would have to re-offend for that to work.
    - 988747 4y ago
      But if they don't re-offend that means that this "parking ticket" actually worked, right? The goal is to make the company follow the law, not push it to bankruptcy as a revenge.
      - alistairSH 4y ago
        The problem is the "small" fine might dissuade GoodRx from re-offending in the short term. But, it probably isn't enough to prevent other bad actors. Or from GoodRx re-offending in a few years, once the CEO/BoD/etc have rotated on to other pursuits.
- inetknght 4y ago
  > then what prevents them from using that power to sabotage (or threaten to sabotage) well behaved companies to line their own pockets? Well-behaved companies won't line their own pockets out of fear that the FTC will sue them out of existence.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mulmen 4y ago
    The FTC would be doing the pocket lining here. I edited that sentence to try and clarify.
- throw93 4y ago
  FTC was created to protect consumers though "strong and effective law enforcement"(their mission statement). This FTC action is not "strong" enough, it's just a slap on the wrist. > If you also give them the ability to issue punishments then what prevents them from using that power to sabotage (or threaten to sabotage) well behaved companies to line their own pockets? "Own pockets" - FTC is not a for profit company. GoodRx is a for profit company. Companies have more to gain by acting in bad faith than FTC. So I would trust FTC any given day over a for profit company. > GoodRx hasn’t turned a profit since 2019 This doesn't necessarily mean company is in bad shape. This happens when company is investing in growth at the cost of profit margins during it's initial years. If they can shell out half million dollars on lobbying then $1.5 million is indeed a pocket change for them.
  - mulmen 4y ago
    Sure but this FTC action has opened the door for class action and criminal investigation. So does the FTC penalty actually need to be steeper? It’s an honest question, how should that value be set?
    - throw93 4y ago
      The penalty definitely needs to be steeper. Companies this big see $1.5 million penalty as just “business costs”. It doesn’t act as a deterrent. I think it should be steep enough for GoodRx and other companies to think 10 times before doing this kind of shady stuff. As with class action suites, big companies have armies of lawyers to fight such cases for ages and ultimately the victims tend to settle for less because they can’t afford to fight forever.
      - mulmen 4y ago
        How do you count the number of times a company "thinks"? I agree with you, 1.5 mil seems like a low penalty. But how big should it be in dollars based on the facts of this case using a rule that generalizes? Armies of lawyers aren't free and even if the victims don't get paid the lawyers do. It still costs the company money, a lot more than this settlement.
- shakna 4y ago
  There are countries where fines for speeding or parking are proportional to the offender's income. So that it leaves a message, and actually discourages future choices. Proportionality, also means that if you have less to give, you give less.
aj7 4y ago
You have no concept as to how much of a GOOD actor GoodRx is. I agree, they f*cked up here, and deserved to be punished.

mulmen 4y ago

> I want FTC to put fear of god in bad actors like GoodRx. I’m not sure I do. The FTC does civil enforcement and investigation. They identify misbehavior and issue the equivalent of parking tickets. If you also give them the ability to issue punishments then what prevents the FTC from using that power to line their own pockets by sabotaging (or threaten to sabotage) well behaved companies? This penalty may not preclude lawsuits by GoodRx customers or further investigations by other organizations leading to criminal penalties. I’m not a lawyer so I could be totally off base here but this is my understanding after dozens of these HN threads with similar comments. > $1.5 million is pocket change for a company with $765 million annual revenue. Is it? GoodRx hasn’t turned a profit since 2019. They lost $32.8 million on $766.5 million in revenue in 2022.

thfuran 4y ago
But is there anything precluding them from re-issuing those parking tickets every day until the problem goes away?
- mulmen 4y ago
  Well GoodRx would have to re-offend for that to work.
  - 988747 4y ago
    But if they don't re-offend that means that this "parking ticket" actually worked, right? The goal is to make the company follow the law, not push it to bankruptcy as a revenge.
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      The problem is the "small" fine might dissuade GoodRx from re-offending in the short term. But, it probably isn't enough to prevent other bad actors. Or from GoodRx re-offending in a few years, once the CEO/BoD/etc have rotated on to other pursuits.
inetknght 4y ago
> then what prevents them from using that power to sabotage (or threaten to sabotage) well behaved companies to line their own pockets? Well-behaved companies won't line their own pockets out of fear that the FTC will sue them out of existence.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mulmen 4y ago
  The FTC would be doing the pocket lining here. I edited that sentence to try and clarify.
throw93 4y ago
FTC was created to protect consumers though "strong and effective law enforcement"(their mission statement). This FTC action is not "strong" enough, it's just a slap on the wrist. > If you also give them the ability to issue punishments then what prevents them from using that power to sabotage (or threaten to sabotage) well behaved companies to line their own pockets? "Own pockets" - FTC is not a for profit company. GoodRx is a for profit company. Companies have more to gain by acting in bad faith than FTC. So I would trust FTC any given day over a for profit company. > GoodRx hasn’t turned a profit since 2019 This doesn't necessarily mean company is in bad shape. This happens when company is investing in growth at the cost of profit margins during it's initial years. If they can shell out half million dollars on lobbying then $1.5 million is indeed a pocket change for them.
- mulmen 4y ago
  Sure but this FTC action has opened the door for class action and criminal investigation. So does the FTC penalty actually need to be steeper? It’s an honest question, how should that value be set?
  - throw93 4y ago
    The penalty definitely needs to be steeper. Companies this big see $1.5 million penalty as just “business costs”. It doesn’t act as a deterrent. I think it should be steep enough for GoodRx and other companies to think 10 times before doing this kind of shady stuff. As with class action suites, big companies have armies of lawyers to fight such cases for ages and ultimately the victims tend to settle for less because they can’t afford to fight forever.
    - mulmen 4y ago
      How do you count the number of times a company "thinks"? I agree with you, 1.5 mil seems like a low penalty. But how big should it be in dollars based on the facts of this case using a rule that generalizes? Armies of lawyers aren't free and even if the victims don't get paid the lawyers do. It still costs the company money, a lot more than this settlement.
shakna 4y ago
There are countries where fines for speeding or parking are proportional to the offender's income. So that it leaves a message, and actually discourages future choices. Proportionality, also means that if you have less to give, you give less.

aj7 4y ago

You have no concept as to how much of a GOOD actor GoodRx is. I agree, they f*cked up here, and deserved to be punished.