AIRLINK 74.25 Decreased By ▼ -0.35 (-0.47%)
BOP 5.05 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-1.75%)
CNERGY 4.42 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-1.78%)
DFML 35.84 Increased By ▲ 2.84 (8.61%)
DGKC 88.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.90 (-1.01%)
FCCL 22.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.35 (-1.55%)
FFBL 32.72 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.06%)
FFL 9.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.51%)
GGL 10.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.74%)
HBL 115.90 Increased By ▲ 0.59 (0.51%)
HUBC 135.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.79 (-0.58%)
HUMNL 9.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-1.3%)
KEL 4.61 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.43%)
KOSM 4.66 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.85%)
MLCF 39.88 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (0.45%)
OGDC 137.90 Decreased By ▼ -1.06 (-0.76%)
PAEL 26.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.46 (-1.71%)
PIAA 26.28 Increased By ▲ 1.13 (4.49%)
PIBTL 6.76 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-1.17%)
PPL 122.90 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (0.13%)
PRL 26.69 Decreased By ▼ -0.32 (-1.18%)
PTC 14.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
SEARL 58.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.77 (-1.29%)
SNGP 70.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.75 (-1.05%)
SSGC 10.36 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.77%)
TELE 8.56 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-1.04%)
TPLP 11.38 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-1.13%)
TRG 64.23 Decreased By ▼ -0.90 (-1.38%)
UNITY 26.05 Increased By ▲ 0.25 (0.97%)
WTL 1.38 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-2.13%)
BR100 7,841 Increased By 22.1 (0.28%)
BR30 25,454 Decreased By -123.3 (-0.48%)
KSE100 74,931 Increased By 266.7 (0.36%)
KSE30 24,146 Increased By 74.2 (0.31%)

A U.S. judge rejected Google’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit claiming it invaded the privacy of millions of people by secretly tracking their internet use.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on Monday said she could not find that users consented to letting Google collect information about what they viewed online because the Alphabet unit never explicitly told them it would.

David Boies, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the proposed $5 billion class action, called the decision “an important step in protecting the privacy interests of millions of Americans.”

The plaintiffs alleged that Google’s analytics, cookies and apps let the Mountain View, California-based company track their activity even when they set Google’s Chrome browser to “Incognito” mode and other browsers to “private” browsing mode.

They said this let Google learn enough about their friends, hobbies, favorite foods, shopping habits, and “potentially embarrassing things” they seek out online, becoming “an unaccountable trove of information so detailed and expansive that George Orwell could never have dreamed it.”

In a 36-page decision, Rogers said the plaintiffs showed there was a market for their data, citing a Google pilot program that paid users $3 a day for their browsing histories.

The Oakland, California-based judge also pointed to several Google statements, including in its privacy policy, suggesting limits on information it might collect.

“Taken as a whole, a triable issue exists as to whether these writings created an enforceable promise that Google would not collect users’ data while they browsed privately,” Rogers wrote.

Google spokesman Jose Castaneda said the company strongly disputed the plaintiffs’ claims and would defend itself vigorously against them.

“Incognito mode in Chrome gives you the choice to browse the internet without your activity being saved to your browser or device,” he said. “As we clearly state each time you open a new incognito tab, websites might be able to collect information about your browsing activity during your session.”

The lawsuit covers Google users since June 1, 2016. It seeks at least $5,000 of damages per user for violations of federal wiretapping and California privacy laws.

The case is Brown et al v Google LLC et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 20-03664.

Comments

Comments are closed.