Facts

Marie Hammerling and Kay Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brought a putative class action against Google LLC.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that for years defendant secretly used their Android smartphones to collect data about non-Google app installation metrics, the amount of time spent using non-Google apps, and how often those apps were open. Plaintiffs claimed that defendant used this data to determine plaintiffs' personal information, such as their religious and political beliefs. In doing so, defendant breached its contract with its customers and violated California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); California fraud laws (the UCL's fraud prong and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)); and privacy laws (common law intrusion upon seclusion; invasion of privacy under the California Constitution; and California's Invasion of Privacy Act).

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions and argued that Google's Privacy Policy and Web & App Activity disclosures informed Android users that Google could collect limited data from non-Google apps and use that data to improve existing products and build new ones. Defendant further contended that plaintiffs' fraud-based claims failed because plaintiffs did not actually rely on any alleged misrepresentation, and defendant lacked a duty to disclose any alleged omission because it did not concern a central function of the product. Defendant also argued plaintiffs' constitutional/common law privacy claims failed because the alleged data collection was not sufficiently personal to be considered highly offensive, and that their CIPA claim failed because the data was not allegedly intercepted in transit or within the territorial bounds of California. Additionally, Defendant argued that plaintiffs failed to allege a "transaction" under the CLRA because plaintiffs purchased their smartphones from third-party manufacturers, not Google. Finally, defendant argued that plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claim failed because Google did not promise not to collect certain third-party data from non-Google apps.

Result

Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice.