Judge Rules Google Must Face Lawsuit Alleging Chrome Tracks Users in Incognito Mode

[hot-gril]

Chrome is unique as it does all the web caching in the Googles cloud.

As opposed to AWS? Guess they are unique cause nobody uses GCP unless forced

 

[69Mustang]

“That’s it” is actually quite a lot, to some of us.

"That's it" is quite a lot to some. True. What it isn't though is selling customer data, and is most often the accusation. In this instance, it's the exact accusation leveled by robertcoogan.

 

[dannyyankou]

Google says upfront how your data isn’t safe-

Google Chrome Help

Official Google Chrome Help Center where you can find tips and tutorials on using Google Chrome and other answers to frequently asked questions.

support.google.com

Not that it makes it right, that’s why I don’t use Chrome. But there really isn’t a legal argument here.

 

[hot-gril]

calling it “incognito mode” doesn’t help spread the word

They're almost annoyingly upfront about what it means, and they wanted to name it something catchy. FF and Safari call it "private mode," is that any better?

 

[JetLaw]

This ruling has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It simply means that the case cannot be resolved via a pre-trial motion because there are issues of material fact that have to be resolved before the law can be applied.

 

[volcomvenom]

Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen. Too many people are in love with Google, even though they know it is bad for them.

we are all junkies

 

[hot-gril]

"That's it" is quite a lot to some. True. What it isn't though is selling customer data, and is most often the accusation. In this instance, it's the exact accusation leveled by robertcoogan.

How do you even know that, though? Did you read all their ToS? Their privacy policy doesn't confirm or deny it.

 

[volcomvenom]

That is indeed how all bulletproof vests are sold. They only work for certain bullets. No joke. 😆 I Hope you knew that.

too late, i'm dead

 

[Nuno Lopes]

"If you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold."

Well. Some companies have you paying for being sold. That is what happens with the unique App Store model

 

[69Mustang]

It’s already gone far in court. Google already made that argument and the court rejected it.

Just a guess, but I doubt this case will end in a verdict against Google. All of the browser history blocking functions from Google, Apple, Firefox, Microsoft, etc. all operate the same way. They only obscure the browsing history of a person from others on the same device. None of them block tracking and all explicitly state they don't block tracking. Gonna be kinda hard to say tracking was done secretly imo.

They all have the same "deception" that's being claimed in this thread as well. It's claimed that incognito implies privacy. Wouldn't that also apply to a function called Private Browsing, InPrivate Mode, or Privacy Mode? Those are the name equivalents of Incognito Mode from Apple, Microsoft and Firefox.

 

[cmaier]

Just a guess, but I doubt this case will end in a verdict against Google. All of the browser history blocking functions from Google, Apple, Firefox, Microsoft, etc. all operate the same way. They only obscure the browsing history of a person from others on the same device. None of them block tracking and all explicitly state they don't block tracking. Gonna be kinda hard to say tracking was done secretly imo.

They all have the same "deception" that's being claimed in this thread as well. It's claimed that incognito implies privacy. Wouldn't that also apply to a function called Private Browsing, InPrivate Mode, or Privacy Mode? Those are the name equivalents of Incognito Mode from Apple, Microsoft and Firefox.

“Everyone does it” is no defense.

Most likely it settles.

 

[4jasontv]

Im a heavy google services user. I don’t feel it’s bad for me. Been using Google services since the beginning and shockingly I’m still alive and well. And with kids.

Let me guess, you can quit any time. All your friends do it. You have nothing to hide.

 

[69Mustang]

How do you even know that, though? Did you read all their ToS? Their privacy policy doesn't confirm or deny it.

Try here: https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/
Click through on the learn more and they even explain "How We Make Money with Advertising"

 

[4jasontv]

They all have the same "deception" that's being claimed in this thread as well. It's claimed that incognito implies privacy. Wouldn't that also apply to a function called Private Browsing, InPrivate Mode, or Privacy Mode? Those are the name equivalents of Incognito Mode from Apple, Microsoft and Firefox.

Yes.

You pick one fight, establish precedence, and then go after the industry.

 

[Cycom]

F Google. I’ve been highly critical of Apple over the years, but Google is on another level of scumbag company.

 

[Suckfest 9001]

Yes.

You pick one fight, establish precedence, and then go after the industry.

Exactly. All the browsers are subject to a lawsuit then if this goes anywhere near passing

 

[69Mustang]

Yes.

You pick one fight, establish precedence, and then go after the industry.

I can agree with this. I just don't think the lawsuit has merit though. All of the browsers are pretty explicit about what their Incognito modes do and don't do. Funnily enough, they all break it down like that as well... do/don't do.

It's like one would have to intentionally avoid the browser notice to form the "I thought I was browsing privately" argument.

 

[cmaier]

Exactly. All the browsers are subject to a lawsuit then if this goes anywhere near passing

You are missing the point of the lawsuit. Google isn’t being sued because incognito mode doesn’t do what it is supposed to. They aren’t being sued for shortcomings in Chrome.

They are being sued because, as the Judge puts it, Google‘s websites have scripts that “surreptitiously direct the user’s browser to send a secret, seperate message to Google’s servers” [Dkt. 113 at 2-3], regardless of the browser being used, and even when the browser is in a private mode.

More specifically:

First, Plaintiffs allege that Google collects duplicate GET requests. Whenever a user visits a webpage, his or her browser sends a message to the webpage’s server, called a GET request. Id. The GET request “tells the website what information is being requested and then instructs the website to send the information to the user.” Id. Accordingly, when Google obtains a duplicate GET request, the duplicate GET request “enables Google to learn exactly what content the user’s browsing software was asking the website to display.” Id. The duplicate GET request “also transmits a . . . header containing the URL information of what the user has been viewing and requesting from websites online.”

and:

Third, Plaintiffs allege that Google collects information identifying the browser software that the user is using, including “fingerprint” data. Id. Because every unique device and installed application has small differences, images, digital pixels, and fonts display slightly differently for every device and application. Id. ¶ 100. Plaintiffs allege that, “y forcing a consumer to display one of its images, pixels, or fonts, online companies such as Google are able to ‘fingerprint’ their users.” Id.

And:

Fifth, Plaintiffs allege that Google collects the geolocation of the user. Id. ¶ 63. According to Plaintiffs, Google collects “geolocation data from (1) the Android operating system running on users’ phones or tablets and (b) Google applications running on phones (e.g. Chrome and Maps), Google Assistant, Google Home, and other Google applications and services. Id. ¶ 105.
Finally, Plaintiffs allege that Google collects information contained in Google cookies, which were saved by the user’s browser. Id. ¶ 63.2 According to Plaintiffs, “Google Analytics contains a script that causes the user’s . . . browser to transmit, to Google, information from each of the Google Cookies already existing on the browser’s cache.” Id. ¶ 70. These cookies “typically show, at a minimum, the prior websites the user has viewed.” Id. Thus, Google can obtain a user’s browsing history from the current browsing session.

And finally:

In addition, Plaintiffs allege that, for users using Chrome without Incognito Mode, Chrome constantly transmits “a unique digital string of characters called Google’s ‘X-Client-Data Header,’ such that Google uniquely identifies the device and user thereafter.” Id. ¶ 95. However, Plaintiffs allege that the X-Client Data Header is not present when a Chrome user has enabled Incognito Mode. Id. ¶ 96. Accordingly, Plaintiffs allege that Google is able to tell when a Chrome user has enabled Incognito Mode. Id. ¶ 96.

As for “everyone knows what Incognito Mode does,“ the judge says:

The Court rejects Google’s argument in the instant case for two reasons. First, Google cannot demonstrate that Plaintiffs expressly consented because Google did not notify users that it would be engaging in the alleged data collection while Plaintiffs were in private browsing mode. Second, as to Plaintiffs’ Wiretap Act claim, consent is not a defense because Google allegedly intercepted Plaintiffs’ communications for the purpose of violating other laws. The Court discusses each reason in turn.

As for the incognito splash screen:

The Incognito Splash Screen makes three relevant representations regarding private browsing mode. One, the Incognito Splash Screen omits Google from the list of entities that can view a user’s activity in private browsing mode: “Your activity might still be visible to: Websites you visit[;] Your employer or school[;] Your internet service provider.” FAC ¶ 52. Although the Splash Screen states that websites may be able to see a user’s activity, the Splash Screen does not state that Google sees a user’s activity. Id. Based on the omission of Google from the list of entities that can see a user’s activity, a user might have reasonably concluded that Google would not see his or her activity. Moreover, the omission of Google from the list of entities “obscure Google’s intent to engage in such interceptions.” 2013 WL 5423918, at *13.

Etc. etc.

In other words, the issue here is that Google, as a provider of web pages, is intercepting your communications in and out of private browsing modes on different browsers. It needs affirmative consent to do that. And when it says things like “your communications may be seen by third parties” and doesn’t mention “your communications WILL DEFINITELY BE SEEN by Google,” the judge is saying that’s a bad thing.

(ps: no idea what’s going on with the formatting here)

 

[Suckfest 9001]

You are missing the point of the lawsuit. Google isn’t being sued because incognito mode doesn’t do what it is supposed to. They aren’t being sued for shortcomings in Chrome.

They are being sued because, as the Judge puts it, Google‘s websites have scripts that “surreptitiously direct the user’s browser to send a secret, seperate message to Google’s servers” [Dkt. 113 at 2-3], regardless of the browser being used, and even when the browser is in a private mode.

More specifically:


and:




And:



And finally:




As for “everyone knows what Incognito Mode does,“ the judge says:




As for the incognito splash screen:





Etc. etc.

In other words, the issue here is that Google, as a provider of web pages, is intercepting your communications in and out of private browsing modes on different browsers. It needs affirmative consent to do that. And when it says things like “your communications may be seen by third parties” and doesn’t mention “your communications WILL DEFINITELY BE SEEN by Google,” the judge is saying that’s a bad thing.

(ps: no idea what’s going on with the formatting here)

I agree with the formatting. This case will be thrown out because the page itself tells you that your usage can and will be monitored outside of the browser’s jurisdiction. No amount of Google hate will change that inevitable outcome

 

[iapplelove]

Let me guess, you can quit any time. All your friends do it. You have nothing to hide.

Im not sure what you mean, quit using google? Why would I stop using the best most accurate and effective search engine on the planet? Why would I stop using YouTube? I’ve had a Youtube account since 2006. Gmail? I can’t remember the last time I sent or received an email I cared about. But I have and use 2 Gmail accounts. Google maps vs Apple Maps lmfao... please

 

[cmaier]

Im not sure what you mean, quit using google? Why would I stop using the best most accurate and effective search engine on the planet? Why would I stop using YouTube? I’ve had a Youtube account since 2006. Gmail? I can’t remember the last time I sent or received an email I cared about. But I have and use 2 Gmail accounts. Google maps vs Apple Maps lmfao... please

Apple Maps is better than Google maps in the US.

 

[hot-gril]

Try here: https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/
Click through on the learn more and they even explain "How We Make Money with Advertising"

I see. Yeah, that's what I thought, was just wondering where they say it.

 

[hot-gril]

Apple Maps is better than Google maps in the US.

Yeah, or at least it's close enough for me to mostly rely on it. I've found Apple Maps to be better for driving directions* but much worse for searching locations not by address, so I sometimes have to make a quick Google address search first.

* tested both side by side on a week-long East Coast college tour in 2013, switched between them in Los Angeles, the Mojave Desert, and all parts of the Bay Area afterwards

 

[hot-gril]

Let me guess, you can quit any time. All your friends do it. You have nothing to hide.

- Can quit? I use Search, Gmail, Docs, and YouTube because they're hands-down the best. Wouldn't want to stop. I don't use their other stuff.
- All my friends do it? IDK, I don't care to ask my friends what websites they use O_0 and none of Google's products have a "network effect" really like Facebook does.
- I have nothing to hide? Mostly true. When I want to hide something, I hide it well; just using Apple's services or something instead isn't going to cut it. If others want to hide more, they can go ahead and not use Google, but that's their choice and not mine.

 

[hot-gril]

Just a guess, but I doubt this case will end in a verdict against Google. All of the browser history blocking functions from Google, Apple, Firefox, Microsoft, etc. all operate the same way. They only obscure the browsing history of a person from others on the same device. None of them block tracking and all explicitly state they don't block tracking. Gonna be kinda hard to say tracking was done secretly imo.

They all have the same "deception" that's being claimed in this thread as well. It's claimed that incognito implies privacy. Wouldn't that also apply to a function called Private Browsing, InPrivate Mode, or Privacy Mode? Those are the name equivalents of Incognito Mode from Apple, Microsoft and Firefox.

No idea, but I hope this is the case. We've so far been lucky to get away without mandated "caution, coffee may be hot" labels on software, even though one doesn't have to be a coffee-spilling idiot to fall victim to misconceptions about tech.

For example, HTTPS is misunderstood by nearly everyone; they think "secure" means "this website is deemed authentic by some authority that you can trust" when it really means "this website, store.apple.xyz.biz, is indeed store.apple.xyz.biz." Worse, xyz.biz.store.apple.com is definitely Apple's website, but not store.apple.xyz.biz!