BR100 Increased By (0.39%)
BR30 Increased By (0.47%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.6%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.7%)
AGHA 6.55 Increased By ▲ 0.23 (3.64%)
BECO 4.40 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (3.04%)
BML 62.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.03%)
BOP 31.38 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (0.48%)
CNERGY 11.79 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (1.73%)
CSIL 5.95 Increased By ▲ 0.23 (4.02%)
FCCL 61.12 Decreased By ▼ -0.42 (-0.68%)
FFL 14.88 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-0.93%)
FNEL 1.24 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.81%)
KEL 6.29 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.48%)
KOSM 6.00 Increased By ▲ 0.44 (7.91%)
LOTCHEM 24.85 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (0.69%)
MLCF 104.13 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.05%)
NBP 174.66 Decreased By ▼ -0.62 (-0.35%)
NCPL 52.83 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.11%)
NPL 54.48 Increased By ▲ 0.36 (0.67%)
OGDC 315.35 Increased By ▲ 1.96 (0.63%)
PACE 9.41 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (2.28%)
PAEL 35.62 Decreased By ▼ -0.18 (-0.5%)
PIBTL 13.71 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (1.78%)
PPL 223.38 Increased By ▲ 1.57 (0.71%)
PRL 80.79 Increased By ▲ 1.71 (2.16%)
PTC 47.15 Increased By ▲ 0.30 (0.64%)
SSGC 24.15 Increased By ▲ 0.28 (1.17%)
TBL 9.25 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.64%)
TELE 7.53 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.89%)
TPL 24.89 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-0.88%)
TPLP 12.88 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (2.96%)
TREET 26.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.57%)
TRG 53.75 Increased By ▲ 0.31 (0.58%)
By

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 for this article.