Quality Control or Snooping? Plaintiffs Sue Over Human Review of Google Assistant Snippets
According to a lawsuit filed Thursday, thousands of Google employees have listened to recordings to improve Google Assistant's listening accuracy without the consent of those recorded, including recordings that didn't include the hot words "Hey Google" or "Okay Google."
July 26, 2019 at 03:42 PM
3 minute read
Google and its parent company Alphabet Inc. have been hit with a lawsuit claiming they violate California privacy and consumer protection laws by secretly recording snippets of individuals' conversations and having workers listen to them to improve the functionality of products that use Google Assistant.
Google Assistant-enabled devices, including mobile phones and tablets using the Android operating system, Google Home speakers, smart displays, cars, TVs, and laptops, listen for two sets of so-called hot words—“Hey Google” and “Okay Google”—to detect user commands. Those commands, in turn, cause the devices to do things such as play certain music or videos, search the internet for information, or set timers.
According to the lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by lawyers at San Francisco's Lexington Law Group, New York's Scott+Scott, and Lowey Dannenberg in White Plains, New York, thousands of Google employees have listened to recordings to improve Google Assistant's listening accuracy. According to the complaint, each Google Assistant recording creates a corresponding transcript. The complaint cites a Belgian media report which claims Google uses employees to check the transcripts against the individual recordings, including those that do not include any hot words, and those involving children who cannot consent to Google's recording.
“Had Plaintiffs known that their communications would be recorded, they would not have purchased a Google Assistant Enabled Device,” the complaint says. “Plaintiffs and the Class members have a property interest in any recordings of their communications. By surreptitiously recording the plaintiffs' and class members' communications, Google has taken property from plaintiffs and the class members without providing just or any compensation,” the complaint continues.
Lexington Law Group's Mark Todzo wasn't immediately available for comment Friday morning.
Google representatives didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.
In a post to the company's blog on July 11, Google product manager David Monsees wrote that less than 0.2% of all recorded audio snippets are reviewed by the company's language experts to improve product performance. “Audio snippets are not associated with user accounts as part of the review process, and reviewers are directed not to transcribe background conversations or other noises, and only to transcribe snippets that are directed to Google,” he wrote. In the July 10 report from Belgian media outlet VRT NWS, journalists were able to identify recorded individuals and playback leaked audio recordings they identified as themselves and their loved ones.
Thursday's lawsuit seeks to bring claims under California's Invasion of Privacy Act, Unfair Competition Act, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act and to certify a class of all individuals who were recorded by a Google Assistant Enabled Device without their consent going back to at least May 18, 2016. The suit seeks to force Google to delete all recordings of class members, to stop recording consumers without consent, and to build in functionality to its products to prevent further recording without consent.
Google has been hit with at least one more class action complaint in Illinois state court stemming from the Google Assistant recordings.
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 AllStock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
3 minute read'You Can’t Do a First Draft of Common Sense': Microsoft GC Jon Palmer Talks AI, Litigation, and Leadership
Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
Trending Stories
- 1NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 2A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 3Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
- 4State Bar of Georgia Presents Access to Justice Pro Bono Awards
- 5Tips For Creating Holiday Plans That Everyone Can Be Grateful For
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