When Users Say No: 3 Things to Know in the Google Lawsuit for Location Snooping
On the heels of a controversial AP report, Google was hit with a lawsuit alleging the company illegally tracked user locations after users altered their privacy settings to do otherwise.
August 20, 2018 at 05:50 PM
4 minute read
The bastion in big tech is being accused of big-brother like behavior, and the accusers are using the law to get the message across loud and clear.
A class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 17 alleges that Google's collection of location data “against the express wishes and expectations of its users” violates state privacy laws. Users expressed their wish in the form of privacy settings on their Android and Apple devices, specifically by turning their location data off.
The lawsuit, filed by attorneys from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Carney Bates & Pulliam, comes on the heels of a controversial report from The Associated Press that brought allegations of Google's actions to light. Here are three things from the lawsuit to know for the litigation ahead:
1. The Lawsuit Takes California Privacy Laws to Task
Consumer privacy is no laughing matter in California, widely regarded as leading the way in state privacy law. The complaint alleges that Google is “acquiring and using the geolocation of mobile users, without their consent” and “in direct contravention of instructions clearly expressed through the turning off the location history function” is in direct violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act” (CIPA).
Now, the law guarantees privacy protections to any state resident using “any telephonic communication system,” and was issued by the Legislature to curb eavesdropping enabled by the creation of “new devices and techniques.” That said, plaintiffs attorneys argue the “multiple devices” employed by Google for user tracking fall under the law's definition of “electronic tracking devices”.
The alleged infraction of privacy laws doesn't stop there. The complaint also counts California's Constitutional Right to Privacy among grounds for infraction. Specifically, it notes that Google's geolocation of customers despite their wishes violates reasonable expectations of privacy, “further supported by the surreptitious and nonintuitive nature of defendant's tracking.”
2. SCOTUS' 'Carpenter' Gets Put to Use
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Carpenter v. United States in June requiring a search warrant to obtain an individual's historical cellphone location data, marked a victory for privacy advocates,
The SCOTUS decision pertains to law enforcement. However, Nathan Wessler, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney who argued Carpenter before the Supreme Court, told Legaltech News, “The court has created space for future cases to address what protections are necessary for all the other kinds of highly sensitive digital age data that's held by third-party companies,” specifying “information generated by GPS on our phones” as among it. The SCOTUS' decision, he added, “creates real momentum toward protecting a wider array of highly sensitive digital age data going forward.”
In the context of the complaint against Google, plaintiffs attorneys argued Google's “intrusions” constitute “an egregious breach of social norms” as described in Carpenter, and thus violate Californian's Constitutional Right to Privacy.
3. Plaintiffs' Firms Have Dipped Their Feet In Tech Suits Before
Of the two firms filing suit, it's neither's first time taking big tech to court. Lieff Cabraser represented plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Fitbit Inc., which was represented by Morrison & Foerster. That lawsuit involved claims Fitbit's heartbeat monitors were inaccurate. The firm's attorney that filed the complaint, Michael Sobol, is chair in both its cybersecurity and data privacy and consumer protection groups, and has worked in lawsuits against Chase Bank, Wells Fargo and Anthem, as well as tech companies like Samsung, Facebook and Microsoft.
Carney Bates is no stranger to tech-related litigation either. The firm actually teamed up with Lieff Cabraser in 2017 against the Walt Disney Co. in a lawsuit that alleged the company violated online privacy protection laws with an app geared toward children that tracks them and delivers ads.
Nor is it the first time either firm has taken Google to task. Partner Hank Bates, who also filed this most recent complaint against Google, took on the big tech company in a 2015 class action filed alongside Lieff Cabraser's Sobol. Via a settlement, Google was required to stop using content from emails to profile its users.
Read the class action complaint here:
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 AllIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readMorrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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