McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

Perceived inadequacy of the $650M settlement

• Many see the fine as a “slap on the wrist” relative to McKinsey’s ~$10B annual revenue and the hundreds of thousands of opioid deaths.
• Several argue fines become just “cost of doing business” and do not deter future misconduct.
• Some call for dissolution of the firm, clawback of bonuses, vastly larger penalties (even orders of magnitude higher), or a corporate “death sentence.”

Corporate vs individual accountability

• Strong sentiment that individual partners/executives should face criminal charges and prison, not just corporate fines.
• Noted that one senior partner is being charged with obstruction of justice, but commenters stress this is for the cover-up, not for the underlying role in the opioid crisis.
• Discussion of how corporate structure and political connections allow leaders to avoid personal consequences; fines are paid by the firm, not by decision‑makers.

Evidence destruction and data handling

• Commenters highlight reports that a senior partner deleted Purdue-related materials and urged others to delete records.
• Debate over whether corporate laptops are typically backed up; some say “always,” others say only servers/cloud storage (e.g., Box) are routinely backed up.
• Linked internal emails about pushing teams to use Box and adding legal disclaimers are cited as CYA behavior rather than true backup.

Opioids, consent, and war-on-drugs consistency

• Some argue McKinsey’s manipulation of doctors, regulators, and messaging is categorically different from consensual street-level drug transactions.
• Others question consistency: if many think the war on drugs and supplier prosecutions are failures, why demand aggressive criminal sanctions here?
• Distinction drawn between criminalizing users vs. suppliers and enablers, with most supporting leniency for addicts but harshness for corporate actors.

Wider distrust of pharma, health policy, and COVID mandates

• Thread veers into debates about vaccine legal shields, COVID public health measures, and “authoritarian” mandates.
• Strongly conflicting claims: some insist vaccines and mandates saved millions; others argue coercion was unethical and marginal in effect.

Reputation and role of McKinsey / big consulting

• McKinsey is portrayed as deeply unethical and repeatedly involved in harmful projects (opioids, insurance “delay/deny/defend,” work for authoritarian states).
• Multiple commenters argue top consultancies mostly provide political cover for decisions executives already want to make, while extracting huge fees.