Google Faces $5 Billion Lawsuit For Collecting User Data In Incognito Mode
| Google Faces $5 Billion Lawsuit For Collecting User Data In Incognito Mode | |
|---|---|
| Short Title | Google Faces $5 Billion Lawsuit For Collecting User Data In Incognito Mode |
| Location | California, United States |
| Date | Filed June 2nd, 2020 |
| Solove Harm | Surveillance, Aggregation, Breach of Confidentiality |
| Information | Preference, Knowledge and Belief, Behavioral, Demographic, Physical Characteristics, Computer Device, Location |
| Threat Actors | |
| Individuals | |
| Affected | Incognito users |
| High Risk Groups | Children, Minors |
| Tangible Harms | Loss of Trust, Exploitation |
Google faces a $5 billion lawsuit over its collection of user data in Chrome's Incognito mode.
Description
Google is facing a lawsuit over its collection of user data while using Incognito mode. Google's Privacy Policy and Incognito splash screen both say that Incognito will limit the amount of data collected as you surf the web. However, Google's cookies and analytical tools continue to operate even when the user enters Incognito modeSurveillance. The plaintiffs argue that this constitutes a breach of contract by not following their Privacy Policy. The plaintiffs also say that Google broke an enforceable promise and expectation set by the Incognito splash screen that it would not collect its users' dataBreach of Confidentiality.
Furthermore, the data collected in Incognito mode is then combined with data collected outside Incognito mode. Despite the Incognito data being collected anonymously, the plaintiffs argue that this aggregation removes any privacy advantages Incognito mode provides.
Google has fought back against these allegations, stating that Incognito mode does not promise privacy while using the internet, but instead promises that no data is saved onto the host computer. Google also says that their Privacy Policy and the Incognito mode splash screen state that websites still "might" be able to view their activity. Google argues that this choice of words gives users adequate warning that their data could be collected. Google has also tried to get the case dismissed due to a lack of concrete harm, arguing that the sale of user data does not inhibit users from participating in the open market.
So far, the court has continuously sided with the plaintiffs. Google's motion was denied because the judge felt that the plaintiffs proved that there is an enormous market that benefits from the collection of their personal data, and the plaintiffs had experienced economic harm. The judge also clarified that even if there was no economic harm, the case would still proceed, as the disclosure of private information has been recognized as adequate standing to sue for both tangible and intangible harms. The judge has also denied that Google sufficiently clarified to its users that their data would still be collected in Incognito mode, stating that Incognito mode suggests an expectation of privacy that Google does not abide by.
Laws and Regulations
California Invasion of Privacy Act
Federal Wiretap Act
Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act
California's Unfair Competition Law