Précédent 2 / 60 Next

Jason O. Barnes, Esq. [ARGUED] Barnes & Associates 219 East Dunklin Street, Suite A Jefferson City, MO 65101 James P. Frickleton, Esq. Bartimus Frickleton Robertson & Gorny 11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 250 Leawood, KS 66211 Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Esq. Bartimus Frickleton Robertson & Gorny 715 Swifts Highway Jefferson City, MO 65109 Brian R. Strange, Esq. Strange & Carpenter 12100 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellants Colleen Bal, Esq. Michael H. Rubin, Esq. [ARGUED] Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati One Market Street Spear Tower, Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94105 2

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation

Case Law

Country

United States

Country Location

Latitude: 39.778231903243785

Longitude: -100.8801256788983

Country Location (Lié Case Law): United States

Decision Date: 10 nov. 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 Name and URL: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression

Documents principaux

IN RE- GOOGLE INC. COOKIE PLACEMENT CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION.pdf
English
Télécharger Vue

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation

Documents principaux

Notifications