Google Can't Completely Kick Location-Snooping Lawsuit
Although U.S. District Judge Edward Davila dismissed claims brought under California privacy laws without leave to amend, he gave plaintiffs another shot at pleading their claims that Google violated users' right to privacy under the state's constitution.
December 19, 2019 at 05:51 PM
3 minute read
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.
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 AllQuantum Computing Company to Part With General Counsel
'Innovation Over Regulation': Tech Litigators and Experts Share Insights on the Future of AI, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Under Trump
FTC Receiver Eyes Fraudulent Messages Ecommerce Company's Clients
How Dana Rao Built a 'Yes' Culture at Adobe and Why He Walked Away
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 2Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 3In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 4Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 5The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
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