In RE: Google Android Consumer Privacy Litigation
4:11-md-02264
N.D. Cal.Mar 26, 2013Background
- This is a Northern District of California MDL addressing Android privacy claims against Google, AdMob, and AdWhirl; court grants partial dismissal and leave to amend.
- Plaintiffs allege Google’s Android OS and Apps collect PII via hidden code/hooks, including names, location data, app activity, and device UUIDs.
- AdMob and AdWhirl are integrated into the ecosystem, with AdWhirl enabling dynamic switching among ad networks; Google acquired AdMob in 2009.
- Android Market and the OS allegedly provide a data-collection environment; Plaintiffs claim notice and consent were lacking and representations about anonymization were false.
- Plaintiffs assert six claims: CFAA, UCL, California constitutional Right to Privacy, CDAFA, Negligence, and Trespass to Chattels; court dismisses several with leave to amend.
- Court denies as moot the motion to strike exhibits; grants leave to amend all dismissed claims; deadlines set for amended pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under Article III for claims | Plaintiffs allege injury from diminished PII value, battery life, overpayment, and statutory/privacy rights. | Defendants contend no concrete, traceable injury; standing lacks for most theories. | Grants in part, denies in part; standing recognized for some battery-life theory against Google; others dismissed with leave to amend. |
| CFAA damage/loss requirement | Plaintiffs allege data access harms caused loss exceeding statutory thresholds. | Allegations fail to show damage or loss to meet 18 U.S.C. §1030(g) threshold. | CFAA claim dismissed with leave to amend. |
| CDAFA damages and without-permission | Google’s surreptitious tracking violated CDAFA, causing damage/loss. | No demonstrated damage/loss tied to all defendants; insufficient “without permission” showing. | CDAFA claim dismissed with leave to amend. |
| UCL unlawful vs unfair vs fraudulent prongs | Alleges PII value diminution and misrepresentations; seeks unlawful/unfair/fraudulent relief. | No standing for unlawful prong; lack of particular reliance and concrete misrepresentations. | Unlawful prong dismissed; unfair prong potentially viable; fraudulent prong challenged; leave to amend. |
| Right to privacy claim under California Constitution | Alleged egregious dissemination of PII and geolocation violates informational privacy. | Allegations not sufficiently egregious to meet social-norm breach standard. | Right to Privacy claim dismissed with leave to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility requirement applied after Twombly)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing prerequisites)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (economic injury can support UCL standing)
- Fogelstrom v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 195 Cal. App. 4th 986 (Cal. App. 4th 2011) (informational privacy concerns insufficient for egregious breach)
- In re iPhone Application Litig., 844 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (standing and privacy claims analyzed in smartphone context)
- Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal. 4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (elements of California privacy right analysis)
- Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (Cal. App. 2006) (UCL framework and prongs)