The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has been pursuing legal action against Google’s “misleading conduct” since Oct. 2019.
“Today’s decision is an important step to make sure digital platforms are upfront with consumers about what is happening with their data and what they can do to protect it,” Sims said.
Google, the court found, did not properly disclose to customers that both the ‘location history’ and ‘web & app activity’ settings had to be switched off if customers did not want their personal data collected, kept, and used by the tech giant.
Federal court judge Justice Thomas Thawley concluded that Google’s conduct “would not have misled all reasonable users.” But would have likely misled some reasonable users, he said.
“The number or proportion of reasonable users who were misled, or were likely to have been misled, does not matter for the purposes of establishing contraventions,” Thawley said in the judgement.
The ACCC chairman said he was “absolutely delighted” with the positive court outcome and noted it was the “first ruling of its type in the world” concerning location data issues.
“Companies that collect information must explain their settings clearly and transparently, so consumers are not misled,“ Sims said. ”Consumers should not be kept in the dark when it comes to the collection of their personal location data.”
However, Google said the court had rejected many claims made by the ACCC and that it disagreed with the final ruling. The company also declared it was looking into the possibility of appealing the case.
The Australia Institute’s think-tank Center for Responsible Technology (CRT) said the case highlighted the “complexity of Big Tech terms and conditions.”
“It is hardly surprising that people end up in this strange world between accepting terms and not understanding them,” Lewis.
Rob Nicholls, an associate professor at the University of New South Wales, told The Epoch Times that the ruling was a major decision that would impact the approach to “click-through” agreements on a global basis.
However, he said it would not affect Google’s current business model.
“It was interesting that the judgment took the view that the conduct was only partially misleading,” Nicholls said. “This is likely to be important in [Google’s] appeal process.”