Plaintiffs Argue for Cert. in Google Android Privacy Class Action Lawsuit

Last Tuesday, plaintiffs defended their claim for certification in the class action lawsuit accusing Google Inc. of violating Android users’ privacy rights.

In their Google privacy class action lawsuit, the lead plaintiffs accuse Google of giving their private information to mobile device app developers without permission. Google argues 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 argues that even if the developers had access and used this information, a class action would not be appropriate because the users’ claims would be too individualized.

The plaintiffs fired back last week arguing that “[i]f plaintiffs’ approach is rejected, that will not mean that extensive individualized issues will arise as to what each app developer did … [i]nstead, plaintiffs will simply lose the case.”

“Whether or not plaintiffs’ approach succeeds or fails, in no event will individualized issues as to what each app developer did be presented,” they conclude in their court filing.

The plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to damages because their personal information became less valuable after Google allegedly shared it with the developers. The plaintiffs say they would use expert testimony to establish damages, but that issue was not appropriate for discussion at the certification stage. Class certification does not require an evaluation of the merits of their case, the plaintiffs argue. They point out in their court filing that certification has been established in similar instances, including in a class action lawsuit filed against Goodyear over rubber hoses. Although there were individualized issues in that case, said the plaintiffs, the court still certified the proposed Class.

“At best,” argue the plaintiffs, “Google’s arguments may raise the prospect of differential damages calculations across the class.”

“But,” they continue in their motion seeking certification of the Google Android privacy class action lawsuit, “variances in the amount of damages to which class members are entitled do not suffice to warrant denial of certification.”

Google had also argued that the plaintiffs’ expert had admitted he had no evidence to show that Android users’ data was actually transmitted. The plaintiffs claim that Google had confused the statements of their expert and pointed out that Google’s own expert had admitted transferring user data was standard practice. The plaintiffs also argue that they did not have to address to viability of their claims at this point in the litigation anyway.

“Whether Google’s practice of publishing to certain third parties the personally identifying information of certain users constitutes a breach of its contracts with those users is the predominant question presented by this litigation,” the plaintiffs argue.

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.