Attention is short. I wouldn't rule it out; pr goes a long way. Spend a couple million on a completely unrelated but well regarded cause of charity and folks who don't have skin in the opioid-game won't associate them for the bad they did (but for their most recent memories).

What will keep the association alive for a while will be documentaries and those who watch them, but lets be real: that's not the public.

I think this is too big to be easily cleaned up.

Never argued against that, and I don't disagree with that at all. But if someone cares to do even the bare minimum of research, it's easy to come up with the Sacklers. What I am arguing against is that the Sacklers will somehow be able to use their wealth to scrub Google et al of their association with OxyContin.

> It’s not like they absolutely have to donate using the Sackler name.

For folks like them, though, then what's the point? After a certain level of Midas-like wealth, the only point is societal standing and legacy. The Sacklers don't seem like the type of folks who are going to get inner joy by donating anonymously.

Aye, there's the rub.

The Sacklers have been donating huge sums to put their name on things for a long time.