Business ProfileforGoogle, LLC
Current Alerts For This Business
The following describes a government action that has been resolved by either a settlement or a decision by a court or administrative agency. If the matter is being appealed, it will be noted below.
Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has finalized consent orders against Google LLC and iHeartMedia, Inc. settling allegations that they produced and aired nearly 29,000 deceptive first-person endorsements by radio personalities promoting the personalities’ use of and experience with Google’s Pixel 4 phone in 2019 and 2020.
According to the FTC, in 2019, Google hired iHeartMedia and 11 other radio networks in ten major markets to have radio personalities record and broadcast first-person endorsements of the Pixel 4 phone. Google provided iHeartMedia with scripts detailing the personalities’ experiences with the Pixel 4. However, the personalities were not provided with Pixel 4s before recording and airing most of the ads, and therefore did not own or regularly use the phones.
The final orders approved by the Commission settle the allegations and bar Google and iHeartMedia from similar misrepresentations. Separate state judgments also require them to pay a total of $9.4 million in penalties.
SEATTLE — Attorney General Bob Ferguson today announced Google will pay $39.9 million to Washington state as a result of his office’s lawsuit over misleading location tracking practices. Google will also implement a slate of court-ordered reforms to increase transparency about its location tracking settings.
Ferguson’s lawsuit against Google asserted that the tech giant deceptively led consumers to believe that they have control over how Google collects and uses their location data. In reality, consumers could not effectively prevent Google from collecting, storing and profiting from their location data.
Ferguson investigated Google’s conduct as part of a multistate effort. Instead of joining a multistate settlement, Ferguson’s office independently filed its own lawsuit and obtained this resolution. The Attorney General’s Office estimates Washington received more than double the amount it would have received under the wider multistate settlement.
“Google denied Washington consumers the ability to choose whether the company could track their sensitive location data, deceived them about their privacy options and profited from that conduct,” Ferguson said. “Today’s resolution holds one of the most powerful corporations accountable for its unethical and unlawful tactics.”
In addition to paying nearly $40 million, the legally binding consent decree, filed in King County Superior Court, requires Google to be more transparent with consumers about how it tracks and uses consumer data. Under this consent decree, Google must:
- Show additional information to users whenever they enable a location-related account setting by describing the sources, purposes and retention of relevant location data;
- Ensure users see information about location tracking; and
- Give users detailed information at an enhanced “Location Technologies” webpage about the types of location data Google collects and how it will use that data.
Ferguson investigated Google’s conduct as part of a multistate effort to hold it accountable for its location tracking practices in the wake of reports of the company’s misleading “Web and App Activity” setting. Ferguson’s office independently filed a lawsuit and obtained a resolution separate from a multistate legal action. As a result, the Attorney General’s Office estimates Washington received double the amount it would have received under the wider multistate settlement.
The Attorney General’s Office will use money from the resolution to continue enforcement of the Consumer Protection Act and take more actions to protect Washingtonians’ data privacy. The Consumer Protection Division receives minimal general fund support and largely funds itself through recoveries in cases like this.
Case background
In January 2022, Ferguson filed a lawsuit asserting Google uses a number of deceptive and unfair practices to obtain users’ “consent” to be tracked. As a result, it is nearly impossible for users to stop Google from collecting their location data.
Google’s conduct included:
- Collecting location data even when consumers disabled “Location History;”
- Misleading descriptions of location settings;
- Tracking Android devices, even with location access turned off;
- Repeatedly nudging users to consent to location tracking;
- Wrongly claiming certain products would not function unless location was enabled; and
- Incomplete disclosures of Google’s location data collection.
Google profits significantly from using consumer data to sell advertising. In 2020, Google made nearly $150 billion from advertising. Location data is key to Google’s advertising business. Consequently, it has a financial incentive to dissuade users from withholding access to that data.
When users enable a setting called “Location History,” Google saves data on users’ location to, as it says in its account settings, “give you personalized maps, recommendations based on places you've visited, and more.”
Google told users that when Location History was disabled, the company did not continue to store the user’s location. For years, Google’s help page stated, “With Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored.” That statement was false. For example, the company collects location data under a separate setting — “Web & App Activity” — that is defaulted “on” for all Google Accounts.
In August 2018, the Associated Press published a story about the confusing Location History and Web & App Activity settings. “Google wants to know where you go so badly that it records your movements even when you explicitly tell it not to,” the AP reported. “Even with Location History paused, some Google apps automatically store time-stamped location data without asking.”
In May 2022, Ferguson defeated Google’s attempt to end the lawsuit when a King County Superior Court judge blocked the tech giant’s motion to dismiss.
Assistant attorneys general Andrea Alegrett, Dan Davies, Kathleen Box, Ben Brysacz and Rabi Lahiri, as well as paralegal Judy Lim and legal assistant Jennifer Marin, are handling the case for Washington.
Additional business information
November 28, 2022 If there's one point to take from the FTC's action against Google and iHeartMedia, it's that the FTC doesn't heart endorsements given by people who haven't actually used the product they recommend. In proposed settlements announced in conjunction with actions brought by State Attorneys General, the FTC alleges that Google and iHeartMedia aired nearly 29,000 ads featuring iHeart radio personalities touting their positive personal experiences with Google's Pixel 4 phone when the purported endorsers hadn't used the product. The combined financial penalties in the state actions: $9.4 million.
The largest owner of radio stations in the United States, iHeartMedia has more than 850 AM and FM stations and also streams content online with a total of 245 million listeners each month. iHeartMedia gives selected on-air personalities the option to make more money by recording ads for specific clients that will run on iHeart stations.
Enter Google. Through its media buying agent, Google paid iHeartMedia more than $2.6 million to have its on-air personalities record ads for the company's Pixel 4 to run on iHeartMedia stations. According to the complaint, Google spent almost $2 million on similar arrangements with smaller radio networks unaffiliated with iHeartMedia.
The FTC says Google provided iHeartMedia and the other networks with scripts for the radio personalities to use in recording ads in English and in Spanish. The typical script lauded many features of the Pixel 4, singling out the camera's "studio-like photos" and the performance of its Night Sight Mode at night and in low light. The scripts included multiple first-person references to how the endorser had supposedly used the phone - for example, for taking photos at "my son's football game," "my mom and dad's 50th birthdays," or "my daughter's school play."
Early in the campaign, iHeartMedia got Google's approval to have its on-air personalities "customize certain parts of the script pending what's relevant to their personal lives (i.e., if they have kids, involved in certain activities/hobbies, etc.)." In October 2019, 43 iHeart personalities at stations in 10 different markets each recorded ads for the Pixel 4 using language identical or substantially similar to what was in Google's scripts. Some of them personalized how they claimed to use the Pixel 4. Those ads aired over 11,200 times between October and December 2019.
But regardless of what the radio personalities stated in the ads, the FTC says they all had one thing in common: None of them had ever actually owned or regularly used Google's Pixel 4.
In response to an iHeartMedia request for the phones, a Google employee said the company would "not be able to provide devices at this time," and instead provided a link to a webpage about the phone's features, noting that "our team has also provided (a) write-up on how to talk about the device." Despite the fact that both Google and iHeartMedia were aware that the on-air personalities hadn't actually used the Pixel 4, iHeartMedia continued to get its personnel to record similar ads - ads that aired thousands of times. Google ultimately provided iHeartMedia with only five Pixel 4s. In addition, the FTC says Google made deals with other networks to get their on-air personalities to give similar endorsements, also without having actually used the Pixel 4.
The FTC complaint alleges that Google and iHeartMedia violated the FTC Act by falsely representing that iHeart personalities owned or regularly used Pixel 4s and that they had used the phones to take pictures at night. The complaint also charges Google with making similar claims about radio personalities not affiliated with iHeart.
State settlements impose a total of $9.4 million in financial penalties. Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York announced settlements with Google and iHeartMedia. Texas has also settled with iHeartMedia.
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/11/hey-google-iheartmedia-ftc-doesnt-heart-deceptive-endorsements
The Justice Department issued the following statements from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, regarding the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s decision in United States v. Google:
“This victory against Google is an historic win for the American people,” said Attorney General Garland. “No company — no matter how large or influential — is above the law. The Justice Department will continue to vigorously enforce our antitrust laws.”
“This landmark decision holds Google accountable. It paves the path for innovation for generations to come and protects access to information for all Americans,” said Assistant Attorney General Kanter. “This victory is a reflection on the tireless efforts of the dedicated public servants at the Antitrust Division and our state law enforcement partners whose work made today’s decision possible.”
At-a-glance
Related Categories
Business Details
This is a multi-location business.
- Headquarters
- 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy, Mountain View, CA 94043-1351
- BBB File Opened:
- 8/19/2002
- Years in Business:
- 26
- Business Started:
- 9/4/1998
- Licensing Information:
- This business is in an industry that may require professional licensing, bonding or registration. BBB encourages you to check with the appropriate agency to be certain any requirements are currently being met.
- Type of Entity:
- Corporation
- Alternate Business Name
- Picnik
- Admob
- Like.com
- Business Management
- BBB Core Team
- Mr. Sundar Pichai, CEO
- Contact Information
Principal
- BBB Core Team
Customer Contact
- BBB Core Team
- Mr. Sundar Pichai, CEO
- Ruth Porat, CFO
- Additional Contact Information
Fax Numbers
- (650) 618-1499Primary Fax
Phone Numbers
- (650) 623-4000Other Phone
- (650) 490-4916Other Phone
Website Addresses
- (650) 618-1499
Customer Complaints
8,555 Customer Complaints
Need to file a complaint? BBB is here to help. We'll guide you through the process. How BBB Processes Complaints and Reviews
File a ComplaintMost Recent Customer Complaint
08/30/2024
- Complaint Type:
- Service or Repair Issues
- Status:
- Resolved
Customer Reviews
600 Customer Reviews
What do you think? Share your review.
Most Recent Customer Review
CJ S
09/07/2024
BBB Business Profiles may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.
BBB Business Profiles are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. BBB asks third parties who publish complaints, reviews and/or responses on this website to affirm that the information provided is accurate. However, BBB does not verify the accuracy of information provided by third parties, and does not guarantee the accuracy of any information in Business Profiles.
When considering complaint information, please take into account the company's size and volume of transactions, and understand that the nature of complaints and a firm's responses to them are often more important than the number of complaints.
BBB Business Profiles generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Profiles are subject to change at any time. If you choose to do business with this business, please let the business know that you contacted BBB for a BBB Business Profile.
As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business. Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation.