In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation
988 F. Supp. 2d 434
D. Del.2013Background
- Consolidated complaints allege Google and other defendants manipulated browsers to set third-party cookies for targeted ads.
- Court has three Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss from Google, Vibrant, and Media/WPP in MDL proceeding.
- Court analyzes standing and multiple federal and California privacy statutes across the CAC.
- Plaintiffs claim data like browsing history and PII have monetary value and were accessible via cookies.
- Court concludes plaintiffs lack Article III standing and grants all defendant motions without reaching merits of many statutory claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do plaintiffs have Article III standing to sue? | PII has monetary value and devaluation occurred from collection. | No concrete injury; mere potential value not enough. | No standing; plaintiffs lack injury in fact. |
| Are the Wiretap Act and California privacy claims viable? | Defendants intercepted contents/transactions via cookies and URLs. | URLs are not contents; cookies/storage not covered. | Wiretap Act and CIPA claims fail; dismissed. |
| Does the Stored Communications Act apply to third-party cookies? | RAM/stored cookies fall within electronic storage; cookies were retrieved. | Facility/storage concept misaligned with device ownership; not a facility. | SCA claim dismissed; storage present but facility requirement not met. |
| Is CFAA damages threshold satisfied by alleged cookie activity? | Unauthorized collection caused monetary loss and damage. | No impairment of performance or >$5,000 loss demonstrated. | CFAA claim dismissed for lack of requisite damages. |
| Do California privacy laws (CCL, CA Constitution, UCL, CLRA) survive? | Privacy intrusion constitutes injury and remedies available. | No standing; no cognizable injury or transaction; CLRA not applicable to software. | Dismissed; multiple California claims rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re iPhone Application Litig., 844 F.Supp.2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (discusses contents vs. transactional data under Wiretap Act and iPhone II context)
- In re Double-Click, Inc. Privacy Litig., 154 F.Supp.2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (cookie storage and privacy considerations under privacy statutes)
- Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., 2010 WL 3291750 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (privacy and access issues under California law (cited for without-permission concept))
- Facebook Privacy Litig., 791 F.Supp.2d 705 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (privacy/data sharing analysis under U.S. privacy law)
- iPhone II, 844 F.Supp.2d 106... (N.D. Cal. 2012) (addressed Wiretap Act contents vs transactional data and RAM storage)