7 ms·

She's suing Google for the 5M she lost because "she believed Google was successfully preventing scam apps from becoming available on the Google Play store." and

She's suing Google for the 5M she lost because "she believed Google was successfully preventing scam apps from becoming available on the Google Play store." and not because it took them so long to take the scammer's app down. If they'd done it within 5 minutes it wouldn't have stopped her from losing her money. I think google should be held accountable for not removing a malicious app from their app store within a reasonable amount of time, but I'm less sure that Google should be on the hook for the money scammers take. Google can and should do a lot more to prevent malicious apps on their platform, and they should be required to respond quickly when the ones they failed to detect are reported to them, but a play store that only allowed/contained apps that Google was 100% confident could never be used to scam another person wouldn't be very useful.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
You have to be very dumb to fall for scams like this but I've always said these walled gardens make people less safe. People get a false sense of security and outsource their brain.
Waterluvian 2y ago
Not a lawyer nor picking sides but I can see an argument where expectation that scams are removed very quickly would greatly reduce the risk profile. It’s like shopping at a grocery store thinking that recalled foods are de-shelved within hours of a notice but they actually kept selling them for weeks. Much different risk profile.
- otteromkram 2y ago
  How would you determine what is a scam app? Number of reports vs installs on Android devices?
  - mannykannot 2y ago
    If the default assumption for consumers should be that it may well be a scam, and there is no practical way for Google to do any better, then maybe it should take the same default.
  - MobiusHorizons 2y ago
    In this case the CFPB apparently was asking them to remove the app for a while before they took it down. No need to even detect the scam apps proactively in that case.
brikym 2y ago
This position would be reasonable if the app stores took 5% but they are a duopoly which take 30%. Visa/Mastercard are in a similar duopoly position clipping the ticket but at least insure their customers.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  Does that mean that Google has to return that 30% of the scammers revenue and return it to the people who were scammed?
  - kibwen 2y ago
    Do you think that Google forfeits the ad revenue that they receive from selling scam ads? Nah, that goes right into Sundar's pocket.
    - CuriouslyC 2y ago
      It's going to give me so much joy when he gets fired.
    - 8organicbits 2y ago
      Ad revenue forfeit does happen, rarely [1], but I think you really need fines. Otherwise its in their favor to collect revenue criminally and occasionally forfeit some. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/google-forfeits-500-million-generated-online-ads-prescription-drug-sales-canadian-online https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/google-forfeits-500-million-g...
  - oatmeal1 2y ago
    Not sure Google gets a cut of uploaded crypto.
  - f6v 2y ago
    I doubt she deposited so much via in-app purchases. Financial apps don’t have to use them.
- Aeolun 2y ago
jellicle 2y ago
> If they'd done it within 5 minutes it wouldn't have stopped her from losing her money. There's no reason to believe, and much reason to believe that it's not the case, that this woman was the very first to complain about this app. Perhaps Google had already received thousands of complaints about the app before she ever downloaded it. That info will presumably come out as the lawsuit proceeds.
CuriousCosmic 2y ago
Considering she was depositing US dollars into the app for several months before she tried to withdrawal and realized it was a fraud, I think that her stance is a bit more reasonable. She used the app for 5-6 months, presumably with other people having been scammed repeatedly in the past and having reported the app. Then after she reported it to the CFPB (which is an independent government agency dedicated to preventing these types of scams and other abuses of customers), the CFPB spent 3 months of back and forth with Google before they were willing to take it down. So the argument is that the app was up for several months with the US government directly reaching out to Google and pushing for them to take the app down for being a scam but they ignored that as long as they could and likely ignored plenty of other reports in the past. At least personally I'd argue that's gross negligence.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  I'd say she should lose all of her money for being dumb enough to transfer it to an unverified app. Then separately, Google should pay penalties to the CFPB for failing to act in a timely manner.
  - lnxg33k1 2y ago
    What is a verified app? It's on the app store, these corps punch balls continuosly about having a grip on their stores for safety reasons, but then when there is no safety people is dumb and the apps are not verified on their app stores?
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      Due diligence. Nobody should be trusting Google or Apple to be protecting them. Certainly not for a $1M+ USD deposit. That the app stores are illegal monopolies shouldn't opine on someone suffering the consequences for their own poor decisions.
      - immibis 2y ago
        How do you verify an app?
mannykannot 2y ago
The main justification offered for walled gardens is that they provide consumer protections. Once that claim is made, "everyone should know that isn't actually the case" is not much of an argument, and "we did the best we could" would be blatantly false here.
- f6v 2y ago
  Does this apply to Google though? You can download untrusted app on Android phone. The same scam situation is yet to happen on iOS.
- fennecfoxy 2y ago
  This is not a legal justification at this point, yet. More a social one. What laws are currently holding app stores accountable for what's on them?

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

You have to be very dumb to fall for scams like this but I've always said these walled gardens make people less safe. People get a false sense of security and outsource their brain.

Waterluvian 2y ago

Not a lawyer nor picking sides but I can see an argument where expectation that scams are removed very quickly would greatly reduce the risk profile. It’s like shopping at a grocery store thinking that recalled foods are de-shelved within hours of a notice but they actually kept selling them for weeks. Much different risk profile.

otteromkram 2y ago
How would you determine what is a scam app? Number of reports vs installs on Android devices?
- mannykannot 2y ago
  If the default assumption for consumers should be that it may well be a scam, and there is no practical way for Google to do any better, then maybe it should take the same default.
- MobiusHorizons 2y ago
  In this case the CFPB apparently was asking them to remove the app for a while before they took it down. No need to even detect the scam apps proactively in that case.

brikym 2y ago

This position would be reasonable if the app stores took 5% but they are a duopoly which take 30%. Visa/Mastercard are in a similar duopoly position clipping the ticket but at least insure their customers.

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
Does that mean that Google has to return that 30% of the scammers revenue and return it to the people who were scammed?
- kibwen 2y ago
  Do you think that Google forfeits the ad revenue that they receive from selling scam ads? Nah, that goes right into Sundar's pocket.
  - CuriouslyC 2y ago
    It's going to give me so much joy when he gets fired.
  - 8organicbits 2y ago
    Ad revenue forfeit does happen, rarely [1], but I think you really need fines. Otherwise its in their favor to collect revenue criminally and occasionally forfeit some. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/google-forfeits-500-million-generated-online-ads-prescription-drug-sales-canadian-online https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/google-forfeits-500-million-g...
- oatmeal1 2y ago
  Not sure Google gets a cut of uploaded crypto.
- f6v 2y ago
  I doubt she deposited so much via in-app purchases. Financial apps don’t have to use them.
Aeolun 2y ago

jellicle 2y ago

> If they'd done it within 5 minutes it wouldn't have stopped her from losing her money. There's no reason to believe, and much reason to believe that it's not the case, that this woman was the very first to complain about this app. Perhaps Google had already received thousands of complaints about the app before she ever downloaded it. That info will presumably come out as the lawsuit proceeds.

CuriousCosmic 2y ago

Considering she was depositing US dollars into the app for several months before she tried to withdrawal and realized it was a fraud, I think that her stance is a bit more reasonable. She used the app for 5-6 months, presumably with other people having been scammed repeatedly in the past and having reported the app. Then after she reported it to the CFPB (which is an independent government agency dedicated to preventing these types of scams and other abuses of customers), the CFPB spent 3 months of back and forth with Google before they were willing to take it down. So the argument is that the app was up for several months with the US government directly reaching out to Google and pushing for them to take the app down for being a scam but they ignored that as long as they could and likely ignored plenty of other reports in the past. At least personally I'd argue that's gross negligence.

ethbr1 2y ago
I'd say she should lose all of her money for being dumb enough to transfer it to an unverified app. Then separately, Google should pay penalties to the CFPB for failing to act in a timely manner.
- lnxg33k1 2y ago
  What is a verified app? It's on the app store, these corps punch balls continuosly about having a grip on their stores for safety reasons, but then when there is no safety people is dumb and the apps are not verified on their app stores?
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Due diligence. Nobody should be trusting Google or Apple to be protecting them. Certainly not for a $1M+ USD deposit. That the app stores are illegal monopolies shouldn't opine on someone suffering the consequences for their own poor decisions.
    - immibis 2y ago
      How do you verify an app?

mannykannot 2y ago

The main justification offered for walled gardens is that they provide consumer protections. Once that claim is made, "everyone should know that isn't actually the case" is not much of an argument, and "we did the best we could" would be blatantly false here.

f6v 2y ago
Does this apply to Google though? You can download untrusted app on Android phone. The same scam situation is yet to happen on iOS.
fennecfoxy 2y ago
This is not a legal justification at this point, yet. More a social one. What laws are currently holding app stores accountable for what's on them?