(Photo: mhong84/Shutterstock)

A federal judge in San Jose has found that plaintiffs haven't yet shown that Google ran afoul of California privacy laws by storing geolocation data for people using its mobile apps who had turned off "location history" on their mobile devices.

Google was hit with a class action lawsuit last summer bringing claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, or CIPA, and the state's constitutional right to privacy. The suit came in the wake of reporting by The Associated Press that Google stored the locations of people using its apps on Android and Apple devices despite the fact that they had turned off the devices' "location history" function. The suit maintained that Google's collection and storage of location data was "against the express wishes and expectations of its users."

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila on Wednesday found that the plaintiffs had plausibly contended that they gave only "ephemeral consent to geolocation tracking" for services such as Google Maps directions and searches for nearby movie showtimes, but that didn't mean that users had granted "indefinite consent to the storage of that tracking." The judge, however, granted Google's motion dismiss, filed by lawyers at Keker, Van Nest & Peters, finding that the allegations of geolocation tracking didn't amount to a violation of CIPA or the California Constitution.

On the CIPA claim, Davila found that the state law, which bars anyone in the state from using an "electronic tracking device" to track someone else's movements, only applies to unconsented tracking, not the storage of geolocation data. Davila further found that the plaintiffs hadn't shown that Google's software services constituted an "electronic tracking device" under the law, a finding that fell in line with an earlier ruling from his Northern District colleague Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in a decision concerning Bay Area Rapid Transit's watch mobile application. Davila denied leave to amend on the CIPA claim finding that the plaintiffs "neither can show that CIPA reaches the software at issue nor that Defendants were intentionally placing electronic tracking devices on vehicles or other comparable moveable things."

On the state constitutional claim of invasion of privacy, the judge held that the plaintiffs hadn't alleged any specific intrusion into a private place, conversation or matter. The judge concluded that Google's collection of the plaintiffs' geolocation information would depend on when and how often they use the company's services. "Defendant's collection of geolocation data is not automatic; it does not happen by the routine 'pinging' of a cell-phone tower," Davila wrote. The judge, however, gave the plaintiffs leave to amend the California constitutional claim to detail the alleged duration that Google recorded their geolocation data and to provide more specific information about the places they deemed private.

Lead plaintiffs counsel, Michael Sobol of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot & Wolfson, didn't immediately respond to messages Thursday asking if they intend to amend their complaint.

Ben Berkowitz of Keker, Van Nest & Peters directed a request for comment to Google representatives. The company didn't immediately respond to messages Thursday.