Court got it right, Google says the plaintiffs voluntarily sent Google all the internet usage information at issue.121 Moreover, Google argues, tracking cookies are routine.122 Pointing to cases describing cookies as, more or less, innocuous,123 Google offers that courts “routinely” find no actionable privacy invasion in cases involving tracking, collation, and disclosure of internet usage information.124 Google gives particular attention to Low v. LinkedIn, where the Northern District of California explained that “[e]ven disclosure of personal information, including social security numbers, does not constitute an ‘egregious breach of the social norms’ to establish an invasion of privacy claim.”125 For purposes of California privacy law, Google’s emphasis on tracking and disclosure amounts to a smokescreen. What is notable about this case is how Google accomplished its tracking. Allegedly, this was by overriding the plaintiffs’ cookie blockers, while concurrently announcing in its Privacy Policy that internet users could 121 Google Br. at 59 (emphasis in original). 122 Id. 123 Id. at 61 (citing, e.g., Pharmatrak, 329 F.3d at 14 (“Cookies are widely used on the internet by reputable websites to promote convenience and customization.”)). 124 Id. at 62 (citing Stern v. Weinstein, 512 Fed. App’x 701, 702 (9th Cir. 2013)). 125 Low v. LinkedIn Corp., 900 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2012). 53