Rodriguez, and other consumers who have had bad experiences. Google may also be considered a stakeholder as it was their search engine which directed Ms. Rodriguez to the DecorMyEyes website, and Ms. Rodriguez contacted Google after finding out that DecorMyEyes, Tony Russo, Stanley Bolds and Vitaly Borker use the negative feedback as a way to get Google’s algorithm to bump them to the top searches. Google displays results on its search engine results page (SERP). Google uses a trademarked algorithm called PageRank, which assigns each Web page a relevancy score (Jonathan Strickland). The interest in each stakeholder is slightly different for DecorMyEyes and all its employees their interest is profit and being well known, negative or otherwise. For Ms. Rodriguez and other consumers their interest would be products they order as well as money they spend. Google’s interest would be that because DecorMyEyes is using their algorithm to boost their sales and ranking on Google, Google may be impacted negatively and people may likely stop using Google’s search …show more content…
Borker, who was found to be the owner of DecorMyEyes can be found guilty of sending threating communications, fraud, and wire fraud for his actions in this case. Penal code 18 U.S.C. § 876 - U.S. Code states Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, so deposits, or causes to be delivered, as aforesaid, any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of the addressee or of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both (findlaw.com). He also committed fraud, false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury (legaldictionary.com). Mr. Borker sent fake items in place of name brands, he also committed wire fraud when he charged customer’s credit cards more than agreed upon, and when he contacted banks and portrayed himself as consumers to end fraud alerts and had the banks add