Appeals Court Revives Case Over Google Chrome Data Collection

Google's Chrome browser in an undated file photograph. Andrew Matthews/PA

A case against the alleged unauthorized collection of data from Google users has been revived, with a U.S. appeals court ruling that the judge who dismissed the litigation erred in her ruling.

Google Chrome users who say they did not authorize Google to collect data from them will take their case to trial after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in their favor, pointing to Google’s policies.

Google’s policy notice for Chrome, a widely used web browser, says that personal information gathered by Chrome “won’t be sent to Google unless you choose to store that data in your Google Account by turning on sync,” or synchronization. Users who sued had used Chrome without turning on sync and were surprised to later learn their data had nevertheless been collected.

“Google’s actions are a serious violation of user privacy,” they said in the suit.

Google has not denied collecting data from the users but, in its defense, highlighted its privacy policy, which says in part that “we collect information about the services that you use and how you use them, like when you ... visit a website that uses our advertising services, or view and interact with our ads and content.”

U.S. District Judge Judge Lucy H. Koh rejected Google’s defense. After Koh was elevated to an appeals court and U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers was assigned to the case, Google filed a new request to dismiss the case, highlighting other policies, including a new account creation agreement that says Google collects data from people who use the company’s products.

Rogers ruled in favor of Google, saying those policies are more relevant. Focusing on them, she wrote that “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.”

The appeals court said Rogers wrongly failed to take into account the Chrome policy notice.

“[W]hen the disclosures are read together and in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, a reasonable user would not necessarily understand that they were consenting to the data collection at issue. It was the district court’s failure to apply the correct standard that led to the opposite conclusion,” U.S. Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. wrote in a 23-page decision.

“Google had a general privacy disclosure yet promoted Chrome by suggesting that certain information would not be sent to Google unless a user turned on sync,” Smith added later.

The unanimous panel remanded the case back to the district court for trial.

Smith was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Mark J. Bennett and Anthony D. Johnstone.

A Google spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email: “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.”

A lawyer representing the Chrome users did not respond to a request for comment.