Asia & Australia

July 27, 2020

Australian watchdog sues Google over users’ personal data use

[ by Legal Era News Network ]


Australia’s anti-competition watchdog has launched federal court proceedings against Google, alleging that the tech giant misled consumers to obtain their consent to expand the scope of personal data and earn more via targeted advertising.

The conduct is likely to impact millions of Australians with Google accounts as the Search engine giant could collect and combine personal data about consumers’ internet activity, for other use by the company, including for targeted advertising.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) alleged in a statement that Google misled consumers when it failed to properly inform consumers, and did not gain their explicit informed consent in 2016.

The company then started combining personal information in consumers’ Google accounts with information about those individuals’ activities on non-Google sites that used Google technology, formerly DoubleClick technology, to display ads.

It meant that this data about users’ non-Google online activity became linked to their names and other identifying information held by Google.

Previously, this information had been kept separately from users’ Google accounts, meaning the data was not linked to an individual user, according to the ACCC.

Google was yet to address the concerns raised by the ACCC.

Google used newly combined information to improve the commercial performance of its advertising businesses, alleged the competition regulator, adding that Google also misled consumers about a related change to its privacy policy. Google significantly increased the scope of information it collected about consumers on a personally identifiable basis.

“We are taking this action because we consider Google misled Australian consumers about what it planned to do with large amounts of their personal information, including internet activity on websites not connected to Google,” said ACCC Chair Rod Sims.

 “This included potentially very sensitive and private information about their activities on third-party websites. It then used this information to serve up highly targeted advertisements without consumers’ express informed consent,” Sims added.

The use of this new combined information allowed Google to significantly increase “the value of its advertising products”, from which it generated much higher profits.

“The ACCC considers that consumers effectively pay for Google’s services with their data, so this change introduced by Google increased the “price” of Google’s services, without consumers’ knowledge.

From June 28, 2016 until at least December 2018, Google account holders were prompted to click “I agree” to a pop-up notification from Google that purported to explain how it planned to combine their data, and sought the consumers’ consent for this. The notification also stated, “More information will be available in your Google Account making it easier for you to review and control”; and “Google will use this information to make ads across the web more relevant for you.”

Before June 2016, Google only collected and used, for advertising purposes, personally identifiable information about Google account users’ activities on Google owned services and apps like Google Search and YouTube.

The ACCC alleged that the “I agree” notification was misleading, because consumers could not have properly understood the changes Google was making nor how their data would be used, and so did not - and could not - give informed consent.

“We believe that many consumers, if given an informed choice, may have refused Google permission to combine and use such a wide array of their personal information for Google’s own financial benefit,” said Sims.

In 2008, Google acquired DoubleClick, a supplier of ad-serving technology services to publishers and advertisers.

Related Post

latest News

  • SC Sets Aside NCLAT Order Against Orchid Resolution Plan

    The Supreme Court of India has set aside a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) order which had rejected a resolution plan proposed by Gu...

    Read More
  • Tatas Move SC Against NCLAT’s Cyrus Mistry Order

    Tata Sons has moved the Supreme Court against re-appointment of Cyrus Mistry as company's chairman.

    Read More
  • Cyrus Mistry Moves SC Seeking Directorship At Tata Sons

    Cyrus Mistry and his investment firms have filed a ‘limited cross-appeal’ in the Supreme Court, pleading that they be granted directorship in Tata...

    Read More