Google Faces Trial For Collecting Data On Users Who Opted Out (arstechnica.com) 18
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A federal judge this week rejected Google's motion to throw out a class-action lawsuit alleging that it invaded the privacy of users who opted out of functionality that records a users' web and app activities. A jury trial is scheduled for August 2025 in US District Court in San Francisco. The lawsuit concerns Google's Web & App Activity (WAA) settings, with the lead plaintiff representing two subclasses of people with Android and non-Android phones who opted out of tracking. "The WAA button is a Google account setting that purports to give users privacy control of Google's data logging of the user's web app and activity, such as a user's searches and activity from other Google services, information associated with the user's activity, and information about the user's location and device," wrote (PDF) US District Judge Richard Seeborg, the chief judge in the Northern District Of California.
Google says that Web & App Activity "saves your activity on Google sites and apps, including associated info like location, to give you faster searches, better recommendations, and more personalized experiences in Maps, Search, and other Google services." Google also has a supplemental Web App and Activity setting that the judge's ruling refers to as "(s)WAA." "The (s)WAA button, which can only be switched on if WAA is also switched on, governs information regarding a user's '[Google] Chrome history and activity from sites, apps, and devices that use Google services.' Disabling WAA also disables the (s)WAA button," Seeborg wrote. But data is still sent to third-party app developers through the Google Analytics for Firebase (GA4F), "a free analytical tool that takes user data from the Firebase kit and provides app developers with insight on app usage and user engagement," the ruling said. GA4F "is integrated in 60 percent of the top apps" and "works by automatically sending to Google a user's ad interactions and certain identifiers regardless of a user's (s)WAA settings, and Google will, in turn, provide analysis of that data back to the app developer."
Plaintiffs have brought claims of privacy invasion under California law. Plaintiffs "present evidence that their data has economic value," and "a reasonable juror could find that Plaintiffs suffered damage or loss because Google profited from the misappropriation of their data," Seeborg wrote. The lawsuit was filed in July 2020. The judge notes that summary judgment can be granted when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Google hasn't met that standard, he ruled. In a statement provided to Ars, Google said that "privacy controls have long been built into our service and the allegations here are a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize the way our products work. We will continue to make our case in court against these patently false claims."
Google says that Web & App Activity "saves your activity on Google sites and apps, including associated info like location, to give you faster searches, better recommendations, and more personalized experiences in Maps, Search, and other Google services." Google also has a supplemental Web App and Activity setting that the judge's ruling refers to as "(s)WAA." "The (s)WAA button, which can only be switched on if WAA is also switched on, governs information regarding a user's '[Google] Chrome history and activity from sites, apps, and devices that use Google services.' Disabling WAA also disables the (s)WAA button," Seeborg wrote. But data is still sent to third-party app developers through the Google Analytics for Firebase (GA4F), "a free analytical tool that takes user data from the Firebase kit and provides app developers with insight on app usage and user engagement," the ruling said. GA4F "is integrated in 60 percent of the top apps" and "works by automatically sending to Google a user's ad interactions and certain identifiers regardless of a user's (s)WAA settings, and Google will, in turn, provide analysis of that data back to the app developer."
Plaintiffs have brought claims of privacy invasion under California law. Plaintiffs "present evidence that their data has economic value," and "a reasonable juror could find that Plaintiffs suffered damage or loss because Google profited from the misappropriation of their data," Seeborg wrote. The lawsuit was filed in July 2020. The judge notes that summary judgment can be granted when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Google hasn't met that standard, he ruled. In a statement provided to Ars, Google said that "privacy controls have long been built into our service and the allegations here are a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize the way our products work. We will continue to make our case in court against these patently false claims."
So Google can't dodge this one (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Good. Doing evil shit needs to have consequences, no matter how powerful you are.
Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
It's their business model. If they're not collecting data on you, they're losing potential revenue.
So any Google rep who says they weren't attempting to mislead people who didn't want to give up telemetry into giving it up anyway? Giant fucking liar.
Asking Google not to gather data. (Score:2)
Asking an entity like Google to stop collecting data is like asking a human to stop breathing. They may say they've stopped breathing, but it's like a little kid that just figured out how to hold their lips together and breathe through their nose. Google's still going to gather the data, they just flag it to not show up under your histories or anywhere else you, yourself may see it.
I like that they're getting dinged for it, but I don't see how they'd ever bring themselves to change that behavior. Especially
Any settlement under $10bn is irrelevant (Score:2)
Perhaps this time the peasantry will get a modicum of justice. But I doubt it.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if there is a large judgment, the lawyers will get 70% of it.
I hope this fails (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be more like suing Amazon after they said they would not use your data collected by your Alexa, but meanwhile there is a third party app on your Alexa collecting your data and Amazon is taking that too, after they said they wouldn't. Amazon also know its your data, it hasn't been 'anonymised' and it was collected and processed entirely in their own systems.
Re: (Score:1)
Those have nothing to do with each other. (Score:2)
Firebase sends information about how you use a specific app to the developer of the app. Web and app activity is about Google storing your search history to make search results better. The supplemental flag adds extra logging about search and browsing activity in other search apps (e.g. Chrome) to make search results better. These technologies are not even slightly related except insofar as they just happen to be owned by the same company.
Making it possible to opt out of app analytics is clearly the res
Re: (Score:2)
This lawsuit is tantamount to complaining that people who opted out of Google Maps location history are surprised when Uber knows your phone's location because Uber uses Google Cloud Platform and Android provides it with the location.
What if you opted out of allowing Google to analyse and profit from your location data, but they did it anyway because Uber gave it to them?
Re: (Score:2)
This lawsuit is tantamount to complaining that people who opted out of Google Maps location history are surprised when Uber knows your phone's location because Uber uses Google Cloud Platform and Android provides it with the location.
What if you opted out of allowing Google to analyse and profit from your location data, but they did it anyway because Uber gave it to them?
First, nobody in their right minds would create a flag with "analyze and profit from" in the description. Flags turn on or off the use of specific types of data for a specific purpose, such as history (e.g. WAA and sWAA). And turning off the use of data for that purpose does not automatically preclude use of that same data for *every* purpose. For example, turning off WAA (server-side history shared across all devices) shouldn't automatically be assumed to mean that you're not okay with storing browsing
Re: (Score:1)
Yes your honor, the placebo checkbox meant we wouldn't track potayto, not potahto.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes your honor, the placebo checkbox meant we wouldn't track potayto, not potahto.
The WAA and sWAA options are, IMO, very clear about what they do, how the data is used, and what you give up if you turn them off, and have gotten progressively clearer with each passing year. The word "tracking" does not appear anywhere in those descriptions. Those flags control whether your browsing and search history is stored in your Google account. Period.
Nothing in those descriptions says anything about barring Google from associating your ad clicks in in-app ads with your advertising identifier.
Coming your way soon (Score:4, Interesting)
My guess is that if Google does not stop it's data collection on all users, not matter what settings they use, something like Privacy possum, which deliberately falsifies your data, will come into existence. Imagine making your searches and sites you visit hidden by a barrage of false info.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org] If adopted widely, it will make data collection useless, because it makes the data useless.
And there is the rub - Doesn't Google know that this is really not that hard to implement?
I’m very confused (Score:2)
I’m not justifiying it, but I’m curious as to how this is gonna play out in court. Those companies live, eat and breathe data on people. Some court case orders them to stop collecting data? They might as well be ordering someone to stop breathing.
Purpose of opt-out (Score:2)
The purpose of opt out is to make a list of people who opt out of things.Thats worth money I am sure. People who aren’t inundated with spam will pay attention to you more.