Google has failed to convince a federal judge to dismiss a privacy class action lawsuit, paving the way for a potential trial set for August. The lawsuit alleges that the tech giant illegally collected personal data from users’ mobile phones after they had disabled the tracking feature, known as Web & App Activity, on their devices.
Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco ruled against Google on Tuesday, rejecting the company’s argument that it had adequately informed users about how its tracking settings worked and that users had consented to the data collection.
The class action, which was first filed in July 2020, accuses Google of invading the privacy of both Android and non-Android users by collecting and storing their personal browsing histories without their consent. The lawsuit further claims that this violated California’s law against unauthorized and fraudulent computer access.
In his 20-page decision, Judge Seeborg explained that reasonable users could perceive Google’s conduct as “highly offensive,” given the company’s continued collection of personal data despite internal concerns raised by employees. Seeborg referred to communications within the company that suggested Google intentionally obscured the nature of its data collection practices to avoid alarming users.
The lawsuit centres on Google’s Web & App Activity setting, which tracks users’ activities across its services, even when the tracking option is turned off. Despite employees’ concerns over the clarity of disclosures, Google continued to collect this information, and the lawsuit argues that this breach of privacy could be seen as highly deceptive and manipulative.
Seeborg’s ruling points to internal documents that show some Google employees were aware of the potential for user alarm, yet the company continued to downplay the risks associated with its data collection practices. However, the judge also noted that the internal emails could simply be viewed as an attempt to improve the company’s products and services rather than a deliberate effort to mislead users.
“Whether Google or the plaintiffs’ interpretation prevails is a triable issue of fact,” Judge Seeborg wrote, meaning that the case will proceed to trial, where a jury will decide the merits of the claims.
Google, owned by Alphabet Inc., has defended its data practices, stating that privacy controls are integral to its services. In a statement issued on Wednesday, the company insisted that the plaintiffs’ claims misrepresented the way its products work. “Privacy controls have long been built into our service, and the allegations here are a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize the way our products work. We will continue to make our case in court against these patently false claims,” Google said.
More Read
The lawsuit is not Google’s only legal challenge concerning privacy issues. Last August, a federal appeals court in San Francisco revived a case accusing Google of tracking users of its Chrome browser, despite their decision not to synchronize the browser with their Google accounts. Four months earlier, Google had agreed to pay over $5 billion to settle a separate lawsuit that accused the company of tracking users while they thought they were browsing privately, including when using Chrome’s “Incognito” mode.
The lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the current case are the same firms involved in the $5 billion settlement. These firms have argued that Google’s actions reflect a systematic disregard for user privacy and consent.
The upcoming trial, set for August 18, will determine whether Google’s data collection practices constitute a violation of user privacy under California’s laws. The case, Rodriguez et al v Google LLC, will be closely watched, as it may have significant implications for how tech companies handle user data and privacy in the future.
As the case moves forward, both Google and the plaintiffs will prepare to present their arguments in court. If the case goes to trial, it could set a precedent for how other companies handle user data, especially in light of growing concerns over digital privacy and security.
