Previous 10 / 60 Next

Mayer’s findings were concurrently published in the Wall Street Journal9 and drew the attention of the Federal Trade Commission and a consortium of state attorneys general. The Department of Justice filed suit under the Federal Trade Commission’s authorizing statute in the Northern District of California, and the action resolved by way of a stipulated order providing for a $22.5 million civil penalty.10 Google further agreed to certain forward-looking conditions related to internet privacy, but admitted no past acts or wrongdoing.11 Google similarly reached a $17 million 9 Compl. ¶ 74; Julia Angwin & Jennifer Valentino-Devries, Google’s iPhone Tracking: Web Giant, Others Bypassed Apple Browser Settings for Guarding Privacy, Wall Street Journal (Feb. 17, 2012), http://www.wsj.com/article_email/SB1000142405297020488 0404577225380456599176. 10 Compl. ¶¶ 166-68; United States v. Google, Inc., N.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-4177, Docs. 1, 30; see also Press Release, Federal Trade Commission, Google Will Pay $22.5 Million to Settle FTC Charges it Misrepresented Privacy Assurances to Users of Apple’s Safari Internet Browser: Privacy Settlement is the Largest FTC Penalty Ever for Violation of a Commission Order (Aug. 9, 2012), https://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/press-releases/2012/08/google-will-pay-225-millionsettle-ftc-charges-it-misrepresented. 11 Compl. ¶ 169; Google, N.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-4177, Docs. 30, 32. 10

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation

Case Law

Country

United States

Country Location

Latitude: 39.778231903243785

Longitude: -100.8801256788983

Country Location (linked Case Law): United States

Decision Date: Nov 10, 2015

Case Status: In progress

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Affirmed in Part/Reversed in Part

Keywords

Data Protection and Retention
Privacy
Search Engines
Wiretapping

Judicial Body: Appellate Court

Case Number: 806 F.3d 125

Case Summary: The present case is a consolidated class action against several Internet advertisement services and Google. The lawsuit initially arose out of a report published in 2012 by the Wall Street Journal: "Google's iPhone Tracking: Web Giant, Others Bypassed Apple Browser Settings for Guarding Privacy," which alleged that Google and several Internet advertisement companies had circumvented the users' web browsers, Apple's Safari and Microsoft's Internet Explorer, by placing tracking cookies capable of monitoring web activities for individualized or targeted advertising purposes. The plaintiffs asserted three federal law claims under the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The lawsuit also involved six California state law claims against Google only, including the violation of privacy rights and the state's Comprehensive Computer Data Access. In October 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In November 2015, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded to the district court for additional proceedings. It affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim under the federal Wiretap Act on the ground that the defendants were parties to all electronic transmissions communicated directly with the plaintiffs' web browsers. It also sided with the district court's finding that the plaintiffs had failed to allege cognizable losses as required by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Court, however, vacated the dismissal of the plaintiffs' California privacy claims against Google on the ground that a reasonable jury could find the company's act of bypassing the tracking cookie blockers as a serious invasion of privacy contemplated by California law.

Case Significance: The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Related Law

Source URL: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression

Primary Documents

IN RE- GOOGLE INC. COOKIE PLACEMENT CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation

Primary Documents

Notifications