- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
US District Court Dismisses Google’s Plea To Junk Privacy Class Action Lawsuit
US District Court Dismisses Google’s Plea To Junk Privacy Class Action Lawsuit
A jury trial is scheduled for 18 August
Google has failed to persuade the US District Court, Northern District of California to dismiss a 2020 privacy class action lawsuit, which claimed the company tracked personal data, even after users disabled tracking settings.
Chief Judge Richard Seeborg allowed the case to proceed, citing concerns over Google's vague disclosures. He rejected the arguments that the search engine company adequately disclosed how its Web & App Activity settings worked, and the users consented to the tracking.
Android and non-Android mobile device users had accused Google of invading their privacy and violating a California law against unauthorized fraudulent computer access by intercepting and saving their personal browsing histories without consent.
The Mountain View, California-based Google, a unit of Alphabet, argued that its basic record-keeping did not hurt anyone.
However, in a 20-page decision, the judge held that users could view Google's conduct as ‘highly offensive’ because the company collected data despite fielding concerns from several employees and knowing its disclosures were ambiguous.
He cited internal communications suggesting that Google feigned vagueness in distinguishing between data collected inside and outside its accounts because users might find the truth ‘alarming’.
The judge added that Google employees might have been suggesting ways to improve products and services. He wrote, "Whether Google or plaintiffs' interpretation prevails, is a triable issue of facts.”
Meanwhile, Google’s recent statement read, "Privacy controls have long been built into our service. The allegations are a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize our products. We will continue to make our case in court against the patently false claims."
In August last, the federal appeals court in San Francisco revived a lawsuit accusing Google of tracking Chrome browser users after they chose not to synchronize their browsers with their Google accounts.
Earlier, Google had agreed to destroy billions of data records to settle a lawsuit claiming it tracked people who thought they were browsing privately, including on Chrome browsers set to ‘Incognito’ mode.
Representing the plaintiffs in that case, law firms valued over $5 billion settlement. In the present case, the plaintiffs are being represented by the same firms.



