NO EVIDENCE that "personal information was ever transmitted" So Google Wins Privacy Lawsuit!


TexasBarToday_TopTen_Badge_Small (1)

Android users lost their lawsuit claiming that Google "violated its own privacy policy by disclosing their names, email addresses and account locations to third parties without permission, to boost advertising revenue" according to Reuters. On July 15, 2015 US Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal (Northern District of California) in the case In Re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litigation granted Google's motion to dismiss with this first paragraph since he states in a footnote that the "Plaintiffs offer no evidence that any personal information was ever transmitted from any Android device to any third-party developer, summary judgment in Google's favor would be required":

You might think that after three years of complaints, motions to dismiss, orders on motions to dismiss, leave to amend, amended complaints and more, at least the fundamental question of Plaintiffs' Article III standing to pursue this suit would be settled. You might think that, but you would be wrong.

According to the Order this nationwide class action was "brought by Plaintiffs… against Google on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States that purchased at least one paid Android application through the Android Market and/or Google Play Store between February 1, 2009 and May 31, 2014."

Magistrate Judge Grewal ruled that the "Plaintiffs fail to satisfy all three prongs, they lack standing to pursue their claims":

First, Plaintiffs have no evidence of concrete, particularized and actual or imminent "injury-in-fact" because they no longer allege that the battery-and-bandwidth -using transmission containing personal information ever occurs from Plaintiffs' phones.

Second, Plaintiffs' claim of battery and bandwidth depletion has no nexus to Google's alleged breach or unfair competition.

Third, any injury is not redressable by a favorable decision. No past or future change to merchant queries or receipt of information would alter the battery or bandwidth consumed in purchasing an app.

This lawsuit was originally filed in 2012 when Google changed its Privacy Policy and may yet be challenged by appealing this Order.

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.


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