Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., has reached an agreement to settle a legal case alleging that it covertly monitored the internet activities of millions who believed they were browsing in private through Google Chrome’s Incognito mode.
Initially set for February 5, 2024, the trial was postponed by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California. This decision came following an announcement on Thursday by attorneys representing both Google and the consumers involved, stating that they had arrived at a preliminary settlement.
While the lawsuit demanded a minimum of $5 billion, the specifics of the settlement remain undisclosed. However, the attorneys confirmed that they had established a binding term sheet through mediation. They anticipate submitting a formal settlement proposal for the court’s approval by February 24, 2024.
Google and the attorneys representing the consumer plaintiffs did not immediately reply to requests for comments regarding the case.
The plaintiffs accused Google of using its analytics, cookies, and various applications to monitor their online activities despite using Google’s Chrome browser in “Incognito” mode and other browsers in “private” browsing mode.
According to the plaintiffs, this practice transformed Google into a vast, unregulated repository of data, enabling the company to gather detailed insights about their interests, such as friendships, hobbies, preferred foods, shopping patterns, and even sensitive or potentially embarrassing online searches.
In August, Judge Rogers decided against Google’s request to have the lawsuit dismissed.
She highlighted that it remained unclear if Google had committed legally to not gathering data from users while they were using private browsing modes. This decision was influenced by Google’s privacy policy and various company statements, which implied there could be certain restrictions on the data collection practices.
Initiated in 2020, the lawsuit represented a significant number of Google users dating back to June 1, 2016. It demanded a minimum of $5,000 in damages per individual, citing breaches of federal wiretapping laws and California’s privacy statutes.
Its ironical to see 6 comments by bots while the genuine ones are often declined. You deserve it.