A U.S. appeals court has revived a high-profile case involving allegations against Google for unauthorized data collection through its Chrome browser.
The Epoch Times reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the earlier dismissal of the case was an error, allowing the lawsuit to proceed to trial. The case centers on the accusation that Google collected data from Chrome users without their consent.
Plaintiffs argue that despite Google's assurances, data was collected even when users did not activate the browser’s sync feature.
Google Chrome users initiated the lawsuit, claiming that their personal data was collected without their authorization. They based their argument on Google's privacy notice for Chrome, which suggests that data is not sent to Google unless users explicitly enable the sync feature in their accounts.
However, despite keeping the sync feature off, these users allege that their data was still collected by Google. This apparent contradiction in Google's practices became the core issue of the case.
The initial ruling in the case, made by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, sided with Google. She stated that Google's disclosures were clear enough for a reasonable person to understand that the company collects user data, even without the sync feature enabled.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the previous ruling. U.S. Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., who authored the 23-page decision, argued that the district court did not properly consider Google's Chrome-specific privacy notice.
According to Judge Smith, the district court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims. He emphasized that when Google's disclosures are read together, it is not clear that a reasonable user would understand they were consenting to data collection simply by using Chrome.
This discrepancy in understanding was a significant factor in the appeals court’s decision to remand the case back to the district court for trial.
Google has acknowledged that it collects data from users, citing its general privacy policy. The company has consistently defended its practices, arguing that its privacy policies are transparent and provide users with control over their data.
In her earlier ruling, Judge Rogers highlighted that a reasonable person would recognize Google's practices based on the provided disclosures. She stated, “A reasonable person viewing those disclosures would understand that Google maintains the practices of (a) collecting its users’ data when users use Google services or third party sites that use Google’s services and (b) that Google uses the data for advertising purposes.”
However, the plaintiffs argue that Google's actions represent a serious violation of user privacy. They believe that the company’s practices are deceptive, particularly in light of the assurances given in Chrome’s privacy notice.
The appeals court’s decision has significant implications for Google and its data collection practices. The ruling highlights the importance of transparency in how tech companies communicate their privacy practices to users.
Google’s spokesperson responded to the ruling, stating, “We disagree with this ruling and are confident the facts of the case are on our side. Chrome Sync helps people use Chrome seamlessly across their different devices and has clear privacy controls.”
The case will now return to the district court for trial, where the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to argue that Google’s data collection practices were unauthorized and in violation of their privacy rights.
As the case moves forward, it will be closely watched by those concerned with digital privacy. The outcome could have broader implications for how tech companies handle user data and communicate their practices to consumers.
U.S. Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr.’s ruling was supported by U.S. Circuit Judges Mark J. Bennett and Anthony D. Johnstone, indicating strong judicial backing for the decision to proceed with the case.
The case, which was initially dismissed, now has the potential to set a precedent in how privacy policies are interpreted and enforced in the digital age.
