Privacy Groups Urge FTC to Fight $8.5M Google Search Data Settlement

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Several privacy groups submitted a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), urging the federal agency to ask a California federal judge not go grant final approval to an $8.5 million privacy class action settlement over allegations Google Inc. illegally divulged consumer search information to third parties.

The Google class action settlement would resolve allegations that Google’s search engine violated users’ Internet privacy rights by disclosing personal information to third parties. Allegedly, Google’s search engine included users’ search terms in the URL of the search results page, allowing third party website owners to receive the search terms when a user clicked on a link to their website. The plaintiffs claim that these search terms can contain sensitive personal information such as names, addresses and Social Security numbers that could increase users’ risk of identity theft. More than 100 million Class Members are affected by the Google class action settlement.

The letter, which was released on Tuesday, asked the FTC to “intervene and block approval” of the Google search data privacy class action settlement. It was signed by the directors of five privacy groups, including the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Watchdog, Patient Privacy Rights and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

“The proposed settlement is bad for consumers, bad for online privacy, and does nothing to change Google’s business practices,” the privacy groups wrote in their letter to the FTC. “The settlement confers no monetary relief to Class Members, compels no change in Google’s behavior, and misallocates the cy pres distribution to organizations that, save one, are not aligned with the interests of Class Members and do not further the purpose of the litigation.”

In their letter to the FTC, the privacy groups note that the federal agency recently intervened in a Facebook class action settlement related to children’s online privacy concerns. “The FTC helped ensure that all Class Members affected by a class action settlement retain the privacy rights to which they are entitled,” they said.

“Like the [Facebook] settlement, the proposed Google Referrer Header settlement provides no relief to Class Members and does nothing to prevent Google from engaging in the same practice that provided the basis” for the Google search data privacy class action lawsuit.

The final fairness hearing for the Google search data class action settlement is scheduled for Aug. 29. “If the proposed settlement survives the final fairness hearing, millions of Google users will suffer an ongoing privacy violation with no means of redress,” the privacy groups warn. Several Class Members have also objected to the Google privacy settlement, posing similar arguments as the privacy groups.

In March, U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila preliminarily approved the Google search data class action settlement, despite the concerns expressed by privacy groups. He addressed their concerns about the cy pres distribution, finding that the plaintiffs had adequately demonstrated the organizations would further the interests of Class Members. In approving the Google class action settlement, he acknowledged that “there are certain aspects of the settlement which could weigh against a finding of fairness,” but found that the proposed deal fell within the appropriate range of reasonableness to justify preliminary approval.

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael Aschenbrenner of Aschenbrenner Law PC, Kassra Nassiri and Charles J. Jung of Nassiri & Jung LLP, and Ilan Chorowsky of Progressive Law Group LLC.

The Google Search Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit is In re: Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, Case No. 5:10-cv-04809, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.