True, clash action lawsuits are for lawyers. Lawyers would get at least half and Chrome users might each get $15
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
$5 Billion Google Lawsuit Over 'Incognito Mode' Tracking Moves Closer to Trial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What do you not understand? It's not possible to not get tracked when you're visiting websites no matter what browser you use.
There should be a law against it, and it is wholly immoral in that informed consent is not given and it can be abused. Imagine if this kind of twisted thinking applied to the regular mail, with the post office collecting all the return addresses of your mail to create a profile about you. Tech companies that are slow to realise a growing consumer backlash against this sleazy covert collation of personal information are not likely to survive. Meta isn't exactly popular already.
My two cents: I think the word I'm looking for here is "honesty". Companies are saying one thing in their very detailed EULA or other "weasel words" that no-one cares to read (rightly or wrongly, depending on your point of view) and then patently doing quite the opposite. In this case, the judge believes that despite the very detailed terms, the "simple version" that is presented to the user implies that their privacy will be respected.
So my argument would be Google's behaviour is tantamount to dishonesty. Say one thing, then the opposite, but then do the first. If their summary words in Incognito mode said "browse privately, although we'll still collect data, please see the EULA" then they might have a position to defend. As it stands, morally if not legally, I don't think they do. I hope they lose, because in so doing, it might cause a useful shift in the law such that we can actually start to rely on what we read, without having to be careful we are not being tricked down the line by falsehoods.
User expect “incognito”. Lookup incognito.
You're going to outlaw the ability for companies to guess? As in, guess about anything?
That's hilarious.
There's a History menu on Chrome. I expect Chrome to list out every single historical detail about the universe. I will sue Google because that's not what I find in the History menu.
Lately, I've been a bit wary of Google. You know, that whole "tin hat wearing nerd" thing? It just seems like Google's main game is harvesting our data for those targeted ads.
I've been playing it safe, not relying too much on their browser or email. Unless it's a must, I'm giving them a pass. I can't help but wonder what's going on behind the scenes with all that data they're collecting.
Oh, and have you heard about the email storage hiccup? iPhones default to archiving emails, not trashing them. Who wants to go digging in settings to fix that, right?
But what bugs me most is how Google handles projects. They start things and then they just fizzle out.
I've been playing it safe, not relying too much on their browser or email. Unless it's a must, I'm giving them a pass. I can't help but wonder what's going on behind the scenes with all that data they're collecting.
Oh, and have you heard about the email storage hiccup? iPhones default to archiving emails, not trashing them. Who wants to go digging in settings to fix that, right?
But what bugs me most is how Google handles projects. They start things and then they just fizzle out.
You know what? I agree. We need to start holding everyone accountable.
At the same time, companies should have pop up dialogues reminding users as well with a 5 second timer forcing them to wait instead of clicking.
The issue is we are forced with so many distractions as end users we just want to click away from something right away.
However, these “forced” alerts shouldn’t be abused. And there should be an option to no longer show it after the second time.
Same goes for junk snail mail looking like legitimate mail.
you sound like Trey and Matt when they wrote Human CentiPad, minus any hint of satire. 😂
having user agreements filled to the brim with legalese—with companies knowing damn well that virtually everyone is going to simply scroll past them and hit agree—is one of the most pervasive issues of the modern Internet age. I get that some kind of user agreement is required for any kind of service provided online, but frankly, Apple is showing the way of the future with things like their nutrition-label-esque (wow, forgot "nutrition" was actually in the name for them) Privacy Nutrition Labels.
e.g. one (of many) reason(s) I will never download TikTok.
Company like this with a track record like that should not be trusted unless proven otherwise.
And idiots can also sign a contract that binds them to a life long servitude for $1, but that doesn’t mean it’s legally binding when they realize they messed up. If they’re leading customers to believe they’re not being digitally followed, and then doing it anyway because of line 86 on page 374 (hypothetical example) says otherwise, it’s still deceptive and exploitative.
Or say, if Walmart starts making you sign a paper saying “before shopping here, you agree to let a Walmart employee follow you home, access your mail to see who’s mailing you, and follow you to other stores, and record your receipts learn your shopping habits and what you buy there in perpetuity.” Why is it okay to digitally enforce this if it would be wildly unacceptable in person? And as newer generations come to just accept technology as basic tools, why should they be allowed to track people that can’t technically/legally bind themselves to such contracts? Kids are on the internet too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It may not change business behavior, but it helps keep them accountable when they’re exploiting consumers.
I guess you’re getting ready to defend Google in this class action lawsuit. It is true, no one should expect ”incognito” from Google but the lawyers feel like they have a case.
Yeah dude, and it's the homeowner's fault they got broken into because they didn't lock their door... and it's the shooting victim's fault for not wearing a bullet proof vest...
It's wild to me the contortions people will twist themselves into to blame the victim instead of the criminal, especially when it's a faceless, multinational megacorporation.
Not always.
I had a former home that was plumbed with polybutylene piping and was able to the get entire house re-plumbed in copper as well as reimbursement for damages / repairs from 2 prior leaks. The costs were all covered 100% as the result of a massive class action settlement. It was still a very stressful ordeal but at least it didn't cost me any money out of pocket.
Nah, what is wild is the fact that people do not accept any responsibility anymore and always want to blame it on someone else. (Your analogies are terrible btw) I am not saying Google is in the right here but using the "I didn't read it" as the excuse is laughable at best (especially when it literally has a splash screen right in front of their face. But go off and keep giving idiots a pass to be lazy and not read what is right in front of them to know what actually is happening.
Quit trying to play the victim card (you're not a victim) because you were too lazy to read a little bit to know what was happening.
It’s very easy actually. Every browser you can set the default search engine. It’s right in the settings.
Even better just stop using Chrome and Google services. It’s not a secret they track every thing a user does, plenty of alternatives.
No, I'm not putting my pitchfork down until things like google analytics are made illegal. Telemetry tracking in general is just a lazy and disgusting practice that I wish software firms would give up on already. I get it, you claim that if you don't track what your users are doing, then you won't know when there are simple design flaws in your software that you could fix....
But you probably never do fix that **** anyway. Either because you're personally invested in the design, or corporate doesn't want you to for <insert ******** reason here like "it's a dark pattern meant to keep our users from canceling their service" or whatever>
These services don't need to exist, and they shouldn't exist.
Edit: Blaming people for not reading a long EULA is kinda asinine too. I also agree with the idea that Google shouldn't be allowed to use the term "incognito mode" here. Google making Chrome and also making Google.com is kind of a conflict of interest situation that I don't even think should be allowed.
No, you’re completely wrong. Hands up all those who read and understand all the fine print……. see. Now do you get it? Hiding behind the law to put it simply.
Sorry, but why such a tiny amount? $5 billion? That is a joke. For illegal tracking Google executives should go to jail. The US is known for putting managers into jail for crimes committed by a company.
Google will never stop tracking people if the worst that can happen is a $5 billion fine, while their profits from the user tracking are much higher.
I always tell people that they should never use Chrome. There are other browser that use the Chromium code, but collect much less user data and often even come with built in ad blockers. My father hated ads on YouTube. Show I installed the Brave browser on his tablet. Now he can watch YouTube without ads. People should not forget that the purpose of ALL Google products is collecting user data. That also is true for Android and stuff like Google Fonts and of course Google Analytics.
Sadly Apple starts copying Google more and more. Apple will make it harder to block ads, if their target is making more ad revenue each year.
Google will never stop tracking people if the worst that can happen is a $5 billion fine, while their profits from the user tracking are much higher.
I always tell people that they should never use Chrome. There are other browser that use the Chromium code, but collect much less user data and often even come with built in ad blockers. My father hated ads on YouTube. Show I installed the Brave browser on his tablet. Now he can watch YouTube without ads. People should not forget that the purpose of ALL Google products is collecting user data. That also is true for Android and stuff like Google Fonts and of course Google Analytics.
Sadly Apple starts copying Google more and more. Apple will make it harder to block ads, if their target is making more ad revenue each year.
you sound like Trey and Matt when they wrote Human CentiPad, minus any hint of satire.
having user agreements filled to the brim with legalese—with companies knowing damn well that virtually everyone is going to simply scroll past them and hit agree—is one of the most pervasive issues of the modern Internet age. I get that some kind of user agreement is required for any kind of service provided online, but frankly, Apple is showing the way of the future with things like their nutrition-label-esque (wow, forgot "nutrition" was actually in the name for them) Privacy Nutrition Labels.
e.g. one (of many) reason(s) I will never download TikTok.
View attachment 2243242
And yet, Apple pushes TikTok down the end users throat every other day with App Store featured articles and must have download/top lists. If people read or cared about privacy, TikTok wouldn’t have reached the popularity it has.
Last edited:
Do you realize the type or tracking that Walmart and other retailers already engage in that don’t require any type of EULA? The moment you walk into those stores, load their website/app, they are tracking you. Far more pervasively than Google does.
*typo edit
Last edited:
Moral of the story: Don’t trust/use Google.
Spoken like someone who has never worked on a tech product.
Even Macrumors uses Google Analytics. I see it in the code and in network requests.