Are Market Forces or the GDPR Behind Google's Privacy Update?
Google's move to require apps to disclose and obtain user consent for handling data has far-reaching compliance and competition implications for the tech company.
December 18, 2017 at 08:00 AM
4 minute read
Google has kept mum about the reasons behind its updated privacy rules for app developers. But that hasn't stopped some experts from speculating about the forces behind the change. After all, the new policy could make the tech company more competitive in the consumer space for years to come, but it also has the effect of making Google more compliant with EU privacy laws.
Google recently updated its “Unwanted Software Policy” to mandate that app developers selling or providing their products through Google's marketplaces abide by new rules by January 30, 2018.
According to the “Google Security Blog,” under the new policy, app developers that handle personal user data will be “required to prompt users and to provide their own privacy policy in the app.” In addition, those companies that “transmit personal data unrelated to the functionality of the app” must also “prominently highlight how the user data will be used and have the user provide affirmative consent for such use.”
If the requirements for consent before handling personal data and the need for certain privacy notifications seem familiar to some, it could likely be because they are well-known provisions in the EU's upcoming General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
And some experts don't think that is a coincidence.
“The GDPR is obviously is driving the mobile app ecosystem globally to disclose more about their data collection practices,” says Jarno Vanto, a shareholder at Polsinelli. He added that Google's move to update its policies could be the company signaling it intends to take EU privacy law seriously.
Vanto noted that historically, Google has been the “target of numerous settlements with data protection authorities in Europe, and so I think that [the update is] a healthy reflection of their realization that they have to be proactive and not reactive.”
The updated policy could also be seen as a move to push Google's app developers to comply with GDPR standards before the regulation—which covers every company that handles EU citizen data—takes effect in May 2018.
But the EU regulation may be only part of Google's motivations. Darren Hayes, director of cybersecurity and an assistant professor at Pace University in New York, noted that there are there are several potential business benefits behind Google's policy change as well. Making it harder for apps to handle personal data, for instance, could potentially stifle the ability of third-party data companies to seamlessly collect and process data it obtains from Google apps.
“Some of these analytic companies have actually been bought up by Google, so some might view what Google is doing as trying to control, to potentially monopolize, who gets this kind of analytic information about their app usage,” Hayes said.
What's more, the policy update also may help Google better compete with one of its main competitors: Apple.
“I think they may be trying to emulate some of what Apple has done by giving consumers more control over the apps and the data that apps collect,” Hayes added. “Google and Android have always been known to be less stringent in app approval,” which has made Apple the most attractive option for privacy and security conscious consumers.
The change could therefore potentially level the playing field between the two tech giants. But it's uncertain what effects, if any, the policy will have in actually fostering consumer privacy and security.
“I think it won't make a big difference to consumers at the end of the day,” Hayes said, explaining that consumers often “don't read the small print” and won't likely read what they are consenting to in an app's privacy policy.
Vanto, however, believes that the policy could set a positive security and privacy standard. But he said its impact will significantly depend on how broadly or narrowly Google defines “personal information.”
While the company may implement its own proprietary definition, they also may take the “global approach here under the GDPR and under current EU law, which defines personal data very broadly.”
In that approach, “any data that can be used to identify a person, whether it's your ID on your device, your clicking patterns in an app, or how you play a game, as along as it's somehow possible to identify you as a person, then it's personal data,” Vanto said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand and Uncertainty
Russia-Linked Deepfakes Are Hitting the US Election. Will It Spur Congress to Act?
AI Gives Legal Departments New Leverage to Demand Speed, Efficiency From Law Firms
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250