This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Unfair Competition
False Advertising

People of the State of California v. Google LLC

Published: Dec. 22, 2023 | Result Date: Sep. 14, 2023 | Filing Date: Sep. 14, 2023 |

Case number: 23CV422424 Settlement –  $93,000,000

Judge

Evette D. Pennypacker

Court

Santa Clara County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Michael E. Elisofon
(California Dept. of Justice)

Stacey D. Schesser
(California Dept. of Justice)

Jessica Wang
(California Dept. of Justice)

Yen P. Nguyen
(California Dept. of Justice)

Micah C.E. Osgood
(California Dept. of Justice)


Defendant

Benedict Y. Hur
(Willkie, Farr & Gallagher LLP)

Simona A. Agnolucci
(Willkie, Farr & Gallagher LLP)


Facts

Because advertising is a large percentage of Google LLC's revenue, Google's advertising platform relies heavily on geotargeted (location-based) advertising. Google also uses its location data to develop behavioral profiles of users to help determine which ads would best serve individual consumers. On September 14, 2023, the State of California filed suit against Google in Santa Clara Superior alleging violations of the state's Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant deceived users in regards to how it collected, stored, and used a person's location data. For example, defendant conveyed that if users turned off their "Location History" setting, defendant would not store their location data; however, even when users turned off the "Location History" setting, defendant continued to collect and store users' location data through other sources. Plaintiff also alleged defendant deceptively conveyed that consumers were able to opt out of location-targeted advertisements.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all material contentions.

Result

Pursuant to the final judgment that memorialized the terms of the parties' settlement, defendant must pay the state $93 million and is further subject to several injunctive terms, including: showing additional information to users when enabling location-related account settings; providing further transparency regarding location tracking; providing users with detailed information as to defendant's collection of location data and how it is used through a "Location Technologies" webpage; disclosing to users that their location information may be used for personalized advertisements, and that prior to using location history data, ad targeting profiles may be built around the location history provided; and obtaining review of its internal policies and document approvals for material changes to location-setting and ad personalization disclosures that will have a material impact on privacy.


#142064

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390