US federal judge dismisses case against Google

US federal judge dismisses case against Google

The court ruled that the platform neither requested nor suggested turning off the WAA button feature

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Richard Seeborg has dismissed the claims from a proposed class action against Google. It ruled that a promise to avoid collecting user data did not amount to a contract.

The case (Anibal Rodriguez, et al versus Google) was about Google's privacy framework the Web & App Activity (WAA) button feature. It allowed a user to control whether the data related to the activity on Google's website, apps and services could be saved in the Google account.

The plaintiffs (Anibal Rodriguez and others) had sued Google for continuing to collect their data despite turning off the WAA button.

The plaintiffs' first claim was that Google violated § 631 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which penalizes tapping or learning the contents of a communication while it is in transit. There is a distinction between the higher standard of simultaneity required by § 631 and mere "recording followed by transmission".

While the plaintiffs had previously averred that Google recorded and then transmitted their data (amounting to a claim for improper recordings under § 632 instead), they later modified the claim to one under § 631. However, they failed to prove how the alleged processes "real-time ad bidding" could be done simultaneously.

The second claim was that by turning off the WAA button under Google's privacy controls, a user created a unilateral contract with Google, binding it not to collect users' data.

The judge held that while the WAA button created an expectation among the users that the data would not be collected; such an expectation was insufficient to give rise to a contract.

Even though the user was performing a certain act, it was not "bargained for" by Google. That was because Google neither requested nor suggested turning off the button. Furthermore, both unilateral and bilateral contracts required mutual obligations and differed only in their mode of acceptance.

Since Google was not offering anything "in exchange" for turning off the WAA button, the WAA page could not be the source of an additional contract between the user and Google distinct from the Terms of Service.

The judge contrasted this with an offer by Google wherein users in its Local Guides program could carry out activities to reach "Level 4" (which Google was "bargaining for") to avail of one TB of free storage "in exchange", thus forming a contract.

Therefore, given their multiple unsuccessful amendments so far, the judge denied the plaintiffs further opportunities to amend their claims.