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
8 ways of using collaborative tools to effectively manage remote teams
The remote workforce is growing exponentially, and corporate global companies and first year startups alike are turning to remote teams to get the job done. The question, however, is how do you manage your remote team as effectively as your in-office team?
How brands’ domination of paid and organic search has changed with the evolution of search
With mobile search now accounting for 60% of total search volume and 20% of searches coming from voice, it is easy to say the last few years have really escalated things in the search realm. And given all the changes in the search landscape, it is more important than ever to understand how your brand’s strategy aligns.
What does visual search mean for ecommerce in 2017?
Since the early 2010s, visual search has been offering users a novel alternative to keyword-based search results. But what commercial opportunities does it offer brands today?
What will Google’s expanded policy on harmful content mean for SEO companies?
Google recently announced that it will be expanding its hate-speech policy for publishers that use the company’s ad network. How does this affect SEO companies, and what can we do to make sure we and our clients stay on the right side of the policy?
