Blogs

Google’s $8.5 Million Proposed Settlement for Privacy Violations Opposed

08.27.13

Privacy groups oppose the current offer to settle a 2010 suit that “Google transmitted user search queries to third parties without knowledge or consent in order to enhance advertising revenue and profitability.” According to the 2010 complaint Google included:

The search terms can contain users’ real names, street addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers and social security numbers, all of which increases the risk of identity theft, according to the original complaint. Those queries can also contain highly-personal and sensitive issues, such as confidential medical information, racial or ethnic origins, political or religious beliefs or sexuality.

The class is actually quite large as Computerworld reported that Google’s proposed settlement of the 2010 class action:

...provides for a single settlement class, in this case all persons in the U.S. who submitted a search query to Google at any time from Oct. 25, 2006 until the date of the notice of the proposed class action settlement.

On August 22, 2013 the Electronic Privacy Information Center (Epic) sent US District Judge Edward Davila a joint letter opposing the settlement on behalf of: Consumer Watchdog, Patient Privacy Rights, the Center for Digital Democracy and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

Epic complained in its letter about Google’s settlement proposal that:

(1) it fails to require Google to make any substantive changes to its business practices;
(2) it provides no monetary relief to the class;

Specifically Computerworld reported that part of the settlement:

...is meant to cover settlement administration expenses and part will be paid to the World Privacy Forum, Carnegie-Mellon, Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University and Stanford Center for Internet, and Society among others.

Given the fact that according to Pew Research more than +92% of adults use search engines every day this will be an interesting case to watch.
 

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.

Operators

AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top