Google Android Privacy Class Action Lawsuit Tossed

Last week, the class action lawsuit accusing Google Inc. of disclosing Android app users’ private information without permission was tossed by a California federal judge.

Lead plaintiffs alleged in their class action lawsuit that Google gave Android users’ private information to mobile device app developers without permission.

In response, Google argued that the class action lawsuit should be tossed because the plaintiffs did not show that the app developers had actually accessed and misused the Android users’ information. Google also argued that even if the developers had accessed and used this information, a class action lawsuit would not be appropriate because the users’ claims would be too individualized.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Paul Grewal agreed with Google and dismissed the Android privacy class action lawsuit with prejudice. After a series of amendments, only two claims remained; one for breach of contract and the other for fraudulent unfair competition. The judge pointed out that it would be unfair to Google to allow the plaintiffs to amend their claims again after discovery is closed. The judge also pointed out that the plaintiffs no longer allege that the transmission of personal information from their phones drains bandwidth and battery life, but especially now that they claim they were injured without any actual disclosure of their information to third parties, the judge said there’s no evidence of concrete, actual or imminent injury-in-fact.

“You might think that after three years of complaints, motions to dismiss, orders on motions to dismiss, leave to amend, amended complaints and more, at least the fundamental question of plaintiffs’ Article III standing to pursue this suit would be settled,” the judge said in his order. “You might think that, but you would be wrong,” he concluded.

While the plaintiffs claimed that for a while, app developers could look up the record of a particular transaction on a Google server and access their emails and “rough” addresses, the judge said that the mere risk of future disclosure is not an injury-in-fact. The plaintiffs had cited their expert Fernando Torres’ report to show an analysis of what third parties would pay for a consumer database of personal information for marketing purposes, according to the judge. Torres had concluded that the information disclosed by Google had market value, which the plaintiffs had lost; therefore, they had been injured because they had a quantifiable interest in protecting the privacy of that information.

The judge did not agree with the class action plaintiffs’ expert determination of alleged damages. “There is just one problem with [the plaintiff’s experts] various conclusions: they are not reflected anywhere in the consolidated third amended complaint,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs do not allege economic injury from any dissemination — or any dissemination at all — or any injury in the form of loss of the plaintiffs’ ability to sell their own information or its market value.”

The plaintiffs are represented by L. Timothy Fisher of Bursor & Fisher PA; Mark C. Gardy, James S. Notis and Orin Kurtz of Gardy & Notis LLP; James J. Sabella, Diane Zilka and Kyle McGee of Grant & Eisenhofer PA; James E. Cecchi of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC; Richard S. Schriffin of the Law Offices of Richard S. Schiffrin LLC; Michael Schwartz of James Schwartz & Associates PC; and Martin S. Bakst of the Law Offices of Martin S. Bakst.

The Google Android Privacy Class Action Lawsuit is In re: Google Inc. Privacy Policy Litigation, Case No. 5:12-cv-01382, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.