Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 112 posts

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#21

Post by Andrex »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #17
dmayle wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a bribe, because the government claimed that Google owed this amount of money, and Google paid it. If this was a check to prevent Government action, you might consider it a bribe. If it had been paid to an individual, you might consider it a bribe. In this case, the law says that there can only be a trial by jury if there is financial damage. With Google conceding the amount claimed and paying it, there is n…

> the government claimed that Google owed this amount of money Where did the Gov claim Google owed [the amount equal to the check]?

At the end of the discovery phase.

> Google said that after months of discovery, the Justice Department could only point to estimated damages of less than $1 million.

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#22

Post by pclmulqdq »

karaterobot wrote: post #10
pclmulqdq wrote: post #6

For everyone who doesn't understand what's going on: Google has written a check that they claim covers the monetary damages involved in the case, and has conceded that amount. That would take damages off the table for this case. With no monetary damages, Google thinks that the state has no right to demand a jury trial. They have also said in the article that the amount that Google claims the DOJ can prove is less tha…

> Another legal scholar, Herbert Hovenkamp of the University of Pennsylvania’s law school, called Google's move "smart" in a post on X. “Juries are bad at deciding technical cases, and further they do not have the authority to order a breakup,” he wrote. Would a jury have the authority to break Google up?

A jury would definitely be able to set the damages number, and have some sway on whether Google gets broken up. If a jury sets a huge number, the DOJ will be empowered to go for a breakup and the judge will be swayed toward agreeing.

Incidentally, I have been somewhat involved in a few court cases, and the general advice I have been told is to explain [extremely technical topic] at a 3rd grade level if you want a jury to understand.

By the way, for people who want to argue that people are getting stupider, apparently it was a 6th grade level 30 years ago.

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#24

Post by pkaye »

lesuorac wrote: post #19
Havoc wrote: post #4

> Google asserted that its check, which it said covered its alleged overcharges for online ads, allows it to sidestep a jury trial whether or not the government takes it. wtf. Since when does cutting a cheque allow you to directly dictate how legal process works? Instead of paying a speeding fine this is like going to the judge and saying here is 100 bucks to pretend the speed limit is 10 mph higher and then we hold…

> Instead of paying a speeding fine this is like going to the judge and saying here is 100 bucks to pretend the speed limit is 10 mph higher and then we hold the trial under those conditions. Uh isn't that how it works? You plead no contest and pay a fine and don't even have to see the judge?

I think a defendant can ask for a judge to decide instead of a jury.

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#25

Post by jjmarr »

Havoc wrote: post #4

> Google asserted that its check, which it said covered its alleged overcharges for online ads, allows it to sidestep a jury trial whether or not the government takes it. wtf. Since when does cutting a cheque allow you to directly dictate how legal process works? Instead of paying a speeding fine this is like going to the judge and saying here is 100 bucks to pretend the speed limit is 10 mph higher and then we hold…

To use the speeding ticket analogy, this is the equivalent of just paying the fine. The government can't sue you over an unpaid speeding ticket if you pay the ticket.

The reason why this might work is the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees a jury in federal lawsuits so long as the amount disputed is over $20.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_Unite...

> In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved

If Google says "yep, we're not disputing that we owe the federal govt $1 million, here's a cheque for that amount", their argument is that the "value in controversy" is now $0. Since $0 is less than $20, that clause doesn't apply.

I'd like to hear what an actual lawyer has to say on the odds this'll work, though.

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#26

Post by ajross »

1over137 wrote: post #14

Only a corporation could do this. Imagine pulling this as a natural person. ;(

People and small entities do this all the time. A supplier refuses to refund you for a defective product. You file suit in small claims court and serve them. Suddenly you receive a refund! Your dead beat ex is seven months behind on child support so you get a lawyer to threaten them with a custody battle. Poof, check arrives.

This is the same principle, and it's not even a legal one. If you think you're going to lose (at anything), you want to do so as soon as possible to minimize costs and risks. Works for chess and wars too.

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#27

Post by EMIRELADERO »

jjmarr wrote: post #25
Havoc wrote: post #4

> Google asserted that its check, which it said covered its alleged overcharges for online ads, allows it to sidestep a jury trial whether or not the government takes it. wtf. Since when does cutting a cheque allow you to directly dictate how legal process works? Instead of paying a speeding fine this is like going to the judge and saying here is 100 bucks to pretend the speed limit is 10 mph higher and then we hold…

To use the speeding ticket analogy, this is the equivalent of just paying the fine. The government can't sue you over an unpaid speeding ticket if you pay the ticket. The reason why this might work is the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees a jury in federal lawsuits so long as the amount disputed is over $20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_Unite... > In Suits at common law, where the value in…

The $20+ rule is about guaranteeing a jury trial. If one of the parties and the judge go for it it can still happen right?

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#29

Post by Georgelemental »

free_bip wrote: post #9
pclmulqdq wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a bribe, and there's no lobbying. This is a sort of weird form of "tactical retreat" in the lawsuit. By conceding on the damages the government is demanding (or at least the ones Google thinks the DOJ can prove), Google is taking the issue of damages off the table, and they believe that this takes the demand for a jury trial off the table. They are taking the loss to avoid having a jury trial.

Your comment did not in any way refute the claim that this would be considered a bribe in other countries. It's an exchange of money for a favorable (to them) change in the legal process, which seems like a reasonable definition to me.

It's not a bribe, because no individual is being enriched in exchange for taking a different decision than they otherwise would take.

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#30

Post by userbinator »

jjmarr wrote: post #25
Havoc wrote: post #4

> Google asserted that its check, which it said covered its alleged overcharges for online ads, allows it to sidestep a jury trial whether or not the government takes it. wtf. Since when does cutting a cheque allow you to directly dictate how legal process works? Instead of paying a speeding fine this is like going to the judge and saying here is 100 bucks to pretend the speed limit is 10 mph higher and then we hold…

To use the speeding ticket analogy, this is the equivalent of just paying the fine. The government can't sue you over an unpaid speeding ticket if you pay the ticket. The reason why this might work is the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees a jury in federal lawsuits so long as the amount disputed is over $20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_Unite... > In Suits at common law, where the value in…

I wondered about that $20 amount, and sure enough, from that page:

The amendment additionally guarantees a minimum of six members for a jury in a civil trial. The amendment's twenty-dollar threshold has not been the subject of much scholarly or judicial writing and still remains applicable despite the inflation that has occurred since the late 18th century ($20 in 1800 is equivalent to $359 in 2023

Post reply on HN