Being sued by shareholders is a 'cost of business' for a public company.<p>Funny how those same shareholders had absolutely no problem with it as long as it was making them money, but now that the strategy has backfired they want their risk negated.<p>For the record, I don't think that 'lost revenues' should have been part of the settlement to begin with, it's fairly obvious that the consumers found a reason (for instance, price or availability) to do business with the Canadian companies.<p>The only worrying bit about ordering drugs online is that you might get counterfeit stuff or something that has not been approved with a very good reason (for instance, side effects that are detrimental to your health).
Google seems to be the same kind of target Microsoft was after losing its darling status. No surprise this coincides with the anti-trust suit and patent issues; I expect this will continue until the numbers involved become large enough that it's worth Google fighting back, again just like Microsoft.
Oddly the article never names the plaintiffs nor links to the filing online. But there may be some merit to the suit given how fast Google reacted when the DOJ came sniffing. That is, did the execs know and prepare early (the truth of which could come to light in discovery)?