A federal court judge this week denied Google’s attempt to dismiss a class-action lawsuit accusing the company of accessing users’ “Incognito mode” and private browsing data. The plaintiffs, three Californians and two others, claim that Google captured their data despite promising not to do so.
In their defense, Google argued that they never made such a promise. However, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed with the plaintiffs, stating that users could reasonably expect their data to be private based on the opening “splash” screen of Incognito mode. She also highlighted Google’s “Search & Browse Privately” help page, which emphasizes user control over shared information.
Gonzalez Rogers explained that Google collects users’ data by directing their browsers to send separate communications when visiting websites that use Google services. Both sides acknowledge that tens of millions of internet users have used private browsing modes since June 1, 2016.
While Google denies linking private browsing history to user profiles for targeted advertising, the plaintiffs provided internal communications as evidence. These communications indicate that Google stores regular and private browsing data in the same logs, uses the “mixed logs” for personalized ads, and can identify users with a high probability of success when aggregating anonymous data points.
The lawsuit accuses Google of infringing on privacy, deceiving consumers, and giving access to personal information. Google’s data collection allegedly poses a threat to individuals’ privacy, security, and freedom. The company refutes the claims, stating that users agreed to its privacy policy, which disclosed the data collection and usage practices.
Despite this legal setback, Google is under increasing political scrutiny for its data collection practices. President Joe Biden and Senators Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey Graham have criticized “Big Tech” over privacy and competition concerns.
The plaintiffs seek the return of Google’s alleged profits from browsing data, along with unspecified damages and a court order to prevent data interception in private browsing.