Calhoun v. Google LLC
4:20-cv-05146
N.D. Cal.Jun 9, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs are Chrome browser users alleging Google violated its contractual privacy promises by collecting certain personal information (PI) from users who did not sync their browser with a Google account.
- Google’s Chrome Privacy Notice (CPN) stated PI would not be collected unless the user enabled sync, but Google disclosed data collection practices in other documents (Privacy Policy, Consent Bump Agreement, account agreements, etc.).
- The court previously granted summary judgment for Google, holding users consented to data collection via browser-agnostic privacy policies, not Chrome-specific documents, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, noting fact disputes about reasonable user consent.
- After remand, plaintiffs sought certification of a class of all Google accountholders who used Chrome in basic or "not consented for sync" modes from September 23, 2018 to present, under FRCP 23(b)(3) (damages), 23(b)(2) (injunctive), or 23(c)(4) (issue class).
- Google opposed, arguing predominance was lacking (due to individualized issues of implied consent) and that multiple disclosure sources made classwide treatment inappropriate.
- The court denied class certification on all grounds, finding individualized issues about user knowledge and consent overwhelmed any common issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) (Damages Class) | Common proof could establish Google's liability; implied consent is not a defense | Individual issues of user consent/knowledge defeat predominance; implied consent applies | Certification denied: individual consent issues predominate |
| Injunctive Relief under 23(b)(2) | Google’s ongoing policies injure all class members, so classwide relief is proper | No ongoing contractual promises; new documents supersede old contract terms | Certification denied: no ongoing classwide injury |
| Typicality and Adequacy under Rule 23(a) | Named plaintiffs’ claims typical of class; all had same contract | Named plaintiffs did not read Chrome Privacy Notice, so are atypical | Not decided—predominance grounds dispositive |
| Issue Class under Rule 23(c)(4) | Particular liability issues can be tried classwide for efficiency | Implied consent defense makes issue class inefficient due to individual issues | Certification denied: issue class would not advance litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (discussing rigorous Rule 23 class certification standards)
- Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (importance of resolving factual disputes in class certification)
- Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (rigorous analysis requirement for Rule 23)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (predominance inquiry under Rule 23(b)(3))
- Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. 804 (predominance begins with elements of the cause of action)