3 ms·
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
by 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 agoSure 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 agoThe 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 agoHow 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.
- throw93 4y agoLawyers definitely cost companies less than paying victims, that's why they have them in first place. You can refer to DuPont lawsuits for this. As regards to the accurate number I don't have any, but it should definitely not be this low.
- bombcar 4y agoThe FTC should be able to order a company “executed” - forced to liquidate and disperse all holdings.
- dpkirchner 4y ago> It’s an honest question, how should that value be set? We could start at whatever they charged their customers for the data. Not whatever the profit may have been, the sum of the invoices.
- mulmen 4y agoI like that!