[monocularvision]

“Google denied wrongdoing but settled to avoid the risk, cost and uncertainty of litigation, court papers show.”

I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not.

[caminante]

The payout was not pennies and this case had been around since 2019, surviving multiple dismissal attempts.

While not an "admission of wrongdoing," it points to some non-zero merit in the plaintiff's case.

[HPMOR]

Google makes over $1bn/day. $68mm is literally an hour's worth of revenue to them - so yes pennies.

[caminante]

Revenue != Making

And I'm delighted to be surrounded by ultra high net worth individuals here on HN where $68 million is "pennies."

[anigbrowl]

No corporate body ever admits wrongdoing and that's part of the problem. Even when a company loses its appeals, it's virtually unheard of for them to apologize, usually you just get a mealy mouthed 'we respect the court's decision although it did not go the way we hoped.' Accordingly, I don't give denials of wrongdoing any weight at all. I don't assume random accusations are true, but even when they are corporations and their officers/spokespersons are incentivized to lie.

[stackghost]

>I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not.

It absolutely is.

If they knew without a doubt their equipment (that they produce) doesn't eavesdrop, then why would they be concerned about "risk [...] and uncertainty of litigation"?

[gildenFish]

It is not. The belief that it does is just a comforting delusion people believe to avoid reality. Large companies often forgo fighting cases that will result in a Pyrrhic victory.

Also people already believe google (and every other company) eavesdrops on them, going to trail and winning the case people would not change that.

[stackghost]

That doesn't answer my question. By their own statement they are concerned about the risks and uncertainty of litigation.

Again: If their products did not eavesdrop, precisely what risks and uncertainty are they afraid of?

[caminante]

I'm giving parent benefit of the doubt, but I'm chuckling at the following scenarios:

(1) Alphabet admits wrongdoing, but gets an innocent verdict

(2) Alphabet receives a verdict of wrongdoing, but denies it

and the parent using either to claim lack of

> some admission of wrongdoing

The court's designed to settle disputes more than render verdicts.

[hunterpayne]

> I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not.

The money is the admission of guilt in modern parlance.