Facebook Joins Google as Target for Clandestine Location Tracking Class Actions
The plaintiff alleges Facebook continued tracking his location despite trying to prevent such in his privacy settings.
October 22, 2018 at 06:22 PM
4 minute read
|
Facebook was tagged with a class action lawsuit Oct. 19 alleging the social media giant tracks locations despite users changing their privacy settings to prevent it.
Brought before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the lawsuit alleges that Facebook tracked plaintiff Brett Heeger's whereabouts despite his having “expressly attempted to limit” such “by turning the location history tracking and storage option to off” in his user account.
“Plaintiff relied on Facebook's promise that, if he turned location history 'off,' Facebook would no longer build a location history logging his private location information,” the complaint said. “Nevertheless, Facebook continued to track and store his private location information without his knowledge or consent even when plaintiff did not use the Facebook app or tag his location in posts.”
The suit, filed by attorneys from Tycko & Zavareei and Stueve Siegel Hanson, largely mirrors a class action against Google over similar data practices, with both companies accused of violating California privacy laws. The allegations against Google spawned from an Associated Press investigation that revealed some of the company's apps and services were tracking users' physical whereabouts after users set their device's settings to prevent such recording.
Facebook is charged with violating California's Invasion of Privacy Act, which prohibits using “an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person.” The lawsuit claims Facebook's “applications, software, device components, and other technology on plaintiff's and each class members' mobile phone” constitute as tracking devices under the law.
Also among charges brought against Facebook under California law is an alleged violation of the state's Constitutional Right of Privacy, with the company accused of having “intentionally intruded on plaintiff's and class members' solitude, seclusion, right of privacy, and private affairs by continuing to track, build and store detailed location histories without their knowledge or consent.” These actions are “particularly egregious,” it notes, because the company “surreptitiously, and in an unfair and deceptive manner, continued and continues to track plaintiff and class members after they affirmatively disabled location history on their mobile phones.”
Plaintiffs attorneys are also alleging that location information transmitted by Facebook between user devices and Facebook's servers unbeknownst to users is a violation of the Stored Communications Act. The company's actions, plaintiffs claim, also violate a 2011 consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission to not share information like physical location when a user asks them not to.
“This behavior by Facebook was malicious, oppressive, and willful, and calculated to injure plaintiff and class members in conscious disregard of their rights,” the complaint adds.
A Facebook spokesperson told The Recorder in an email that “Facebook's data policy and related disclosures explain our practices relating to location data and provide information about the privacy settings we make available.”
“This lawsuit is without merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously,” they added.
But plaintiffs attorney Sabita Soneji, an Oakland partner at Tycko & Zavareei, noted that “Facebook's disclosures about location tracking are both misleading and omit crucial information.”
The suit isn't the first brought against Facebook by Tycko & Zavareei. The firm filed a complaint against the company in August alleging it shared user data with mobile device makers like Apple and Samsung without user consent. Soneji is also the plaintiffs attorney in that lawsuit.
That investigation led the firm to “find out about this separate but equally egregious privacy violation,” Soneji said.
“A reasonable consumer thinks that turning off 'location history' means that Facebook will no longer track or store his location information,” Soneji added. “Indeed, reasonable consumers only turn off that feature because they want to protect their private location data. In reality, Facebook continues to track and store users' location information without users' consent—and regardless of their privacy settings.”
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 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