Nora Sleeth is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.
ҴǴDz’s contains a set of guidelines intended to prevent illegal online pharmacies from advertising on the search engine. Adverts for these “rogue pharmacies” have nevertheless been spotted, leading Google to set aside to settle a potential investigation regarding whether Google aided in online illegal activity.
Until 2010, Google employed to investigate online pharmacies attempting to advertise through Google. the website’s Vice President, Gabriel Levitt, many of the rogue pharmacies advertising on Google never passed through PharmacyChecker. Further, Google has ultimate control over all pharmacy advertisements, regardless of any decisions made by PharmacyChecker.
According to pharmacy regulators, PharmacyChecker’s procedure was insufficient and illegal pharmacies often escaped detection. Google has since abandoned PharmacyChecker in favour of certification by the (NABP) or (CIPA). PharmacyChecker has been to produce records of communications with Google but is not a target in any investigation.
While it is unclear exactly how the illegal advertisements found their way onto Google, it is that Google, motivated by profit potential, may have intentionally ignored Google and other search engines earn approximately $1 billion from pharmacy and health-related advertisements each year, but of Internet pharmacies are in some way in violation of current laws or regulations. often fail to require prescriptions, do not comply with the standards for controlled substances, and sell fake or tainted drugs.
Michael Zwibelman, Google has been taking all necessary steps to combat the rogue pharmacy problem, but a recent by the suggests otherwise. Google was warned about the issue as soon as 2003 when it was contacted by the NABP, which expressed its concern and Google not to accept advertisements from unverified pharmacies. In 2006, Google ignored warnings of PharmacyChecker’s inadequacy when it began relying on the site to approve potential advertising pharmacies.
More recently, in 2008, the contacted ҴǴDz’s chief executive with concerns regarding the persistent rogue pharmacy adverts. , the NABP sent a second request to Google. Google responded by asking for a list of pharmacies identified by the NABP as illegal, stating that this would aid in combating the problem. Clearly, this response was not successful as rogue pharmacies continued to plague Google.
Further repercussions for Google may include who do not want to stand by a company that engages in practices they cannot support. ҴǴDz’s allowance of rogue pharmacy advertisements has been as ҴǴDz’s attempt to profit at the expense of users. Further, this is not the first time ҴǴDz’s advertising policies have been questioned. In 2007, Google was in response to charges of promoting illegal gambling.