A lawsuit against Google over their universal privacy policy has been dismissed by a California judge.
Plaintiffs sought damages from Google, arguing the search and social giant “made money using information about them for which they were provided no compensation beyond free access to Google’s services,” according to U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal’s order.
“A plaintiff must do more than point to the dollars in a defendant’s pocket,” Grewal wrote, noting that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how Google’s use of their information deprived them of its economic value.
Basically, they did not prove their information had some value that Google stripped from them and the case will not move forward.
European regulators, U.S. Attorneys General and privacy groups including EPIC tried and failed to stop the implementation of Google’s new privacy policy early in 2012, though it went forward without a hitch on March 1, 2012.
Their concerns over Google’s co-mingling of user data across all services were dismissed by Google at the time, who wrote in response to Europe’s Commission Nationale de L’informatique et Des Libertes (CNIL):
“We are confident that our new simple, clear and transparent privacy policy respects all European data protection laws and principles. We have notified over 350 million authenticated Google users and provided highly visible notifications on our home page and in search results for our non-authenticated users. To pause now would cause a great deal of confusion for users.”
According to the ruling, eight plaintiffs brought the class action suit against Google “on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who acquired a Google account between August 19, 2004 and February 29, 2012 and maintained such an account until on or after March 1, 2012.”
The suit alleged violations of the Wiretap Act, California’s Right of Publicity Statute, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and others, including breach of contract and commercial misappropriation.
Grewal found that “…Plaintiffs cannot articulate some actual or imminent injury in fact. It is just that at this point they haven’t offered a coherent and factually supported theory of what that injury might be.”
He also found that plaintiffs failed to explain how their name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness was used by Google without their consent.
Related reading
IWD 2018: Eight SEO ladies give their advice on being a woman in search
In honor of International Women’s Day 2018, we wanted to highlight the perspectives of women working in SEO, and how – if at all – they think gender affects the industry and the work that they do. Search Engine Watch spoke to eight successful ladies in SEO to find out their thoughts and advice on being a woman in SEO.
Ranker: How to make a Google algorithm-proof website
Any SEO or webmaster who has ever had a website affected by a Google algorithm change – or feared being affected by one – has probably wished that they could find a way to make their website “algorithm-proof”. One site believes it has found the formula.
Mystified by martech? Introducing the ClickZ Buyers Guide series
Search Engine Watch sister site ClickZ has just launched the first report in its new series of buyers guides, which aims to to disentangle and demystify the martech landscape for marketers.
Pricesearcher: The biggest search engine you’ve never heard of
If you ask Siri to tell you the cost of an iPad near you, she won’t be able to provide you with an answer, because she doesn’t have the data. Until now, a complete view of prices on the internet has never existed. Enter Pricesearcher, a search engine that has set out to solve this problem by indexing all of the world’s prices.
