Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 1 of 37
`
`DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
`David A. Straite (admitted pro hac vice)
`One Grand Central Place
`60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2400
`New York, NY 10165
`Tel.: (646) 933-1000
`dstraite@dicellolevitt.com
`Amy Keller (admitted pro hac vice)
`Adam Prom (admitted pro hac vice)
`Sharon Cruz (pro hac vice pending)
`Ten North Dearborn St., Sixth Floor
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Tel.: (312) 214-7900
`akeller@dicellolevitt.com
`aprom@dicellolevitt.com
`scruz@dicellolevitt.com
`
`BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
`Lesley Weaver (Cal. Bar No.191305)
`Angelica M. Ornelas (Cal. Bar No. 285929)
`Joshua D. Samra (Cal. Bar No. 313050)
`555 12th Street, Suite 1600
`Oakland, CA 94607
`Tel.: (415) 445-4003
`Fax: (415) 445-4020
`lweaver@bfalaw.com
`aornelas@bfalaw.com
`jsamra@bfalaw.com
`SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
`Jason ‘Jay’ Barnes (admitted pro hac vice)
`An Truong (admitted pro hac vice)
`Eric Johnson (admitted pro hac vice)
`112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
`New York, NY 10016
`Tel.: (212) 784-6400
`Fax: (212) 213-5949
`jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
`atruong@simmonsfirm.com
`ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com
` Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`PATRICK CALHOUN, et al., on behalf
`of themselves and all others similarly
`situated,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-05146-LHK-SVK
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS
`REPRESENTATIVES AND CLASS
`COUNSEL; MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
`SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`Hon. Lucy H. Koh
`Judge:
`February 17, 2022
`Date:
`Time: 1:30 pm
`Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 2 of 37
`
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................. 1(cid:3)
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED .................................................................. 3(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3) STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 3(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3) Google’s Promises in its Contracts and Terms of Services Operate Are Uniform
`And Central to Liability and Google’s Consent Defenses ............................................. 3(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3) Google’s Conduct in Collecting and Using Date Taken From Users Is Subject to
`Common Proof that Predominates ................................................................................. 5(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3) LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................................................... 8(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3) ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 8(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3) The Prerequisites of Rule 23(a) Are Met ....................................................................... 8(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3) There are Millions of Class Members. .................................................................. 8(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3) Google’s Conduct Is at the Center of the Claims and Defenses, Creating
`Common Questions for All Claims....................................................................... 9(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3) Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the Class. ............................................. 10(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3) Plaintiffs and their counsel meet the adequacy requirement. ............................. 11(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3) The Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) Are Met .............................................................. 12(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3) Common issues predominate. ............................................................................. 12(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3) Damages Can Be Determined on a Class-Wide Basis ........................................ 19(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3) Class treatment is superior to other forms of adjudication. ................................ 23(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3) Class Certification is Appropriate Under Rule 23(b)(2) .............................................. 25(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3) CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 25(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 5:20-CV-05146-LHK-SVK
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 3 of 37
`
`Cases(cid:3)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Aichele v. City of Los Angeles,
`314 F.R.D. 478 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2013) .............................................................................. 23
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds,
`568 U.S. 455 (2013) ................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2012 WL 2571719 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 30, 2012) .......................................................................... 20
`
`Astiana v. Kashi Co.,
`291 F.R.D. 493 (S.D. Cal. July 30, 2013) ................................................................................ 19
`
`Avina v. Spurlock,
`28 Cal.App.3d 1086 (Ct. App. 1972) ....................................................................................... 20
`
`Bona Fide Conglomerate, Inc. v. SourceAmerica,
`2016 WL 3543699 (S.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2016) ........................................................................... 20
`
`Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................. 24
`
`Carey v. Piphus,
`435 U.S. 247 (1978) ................................................................................................................. 20
`
`Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,
`569 U.S. 27 (2013) ................................................................................................................... 19
`
`Doe v. Chao,
`540 U.S. 614 (2004) ................................................................................................................. 22
`
`Ellis v. Costco III,
`285 F.R.D. 492 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ............................................................................................. 23
`
`Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp. II,
`657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 23
`
`Ellsworth v. U.S. Bank, N.A.,
`2014 WL 2734953 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2014) ................................................................ 9, 10, 13
`
`Facebook Privacy Litigation,
`572 Fed. Appx. 494 (9th Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................... 21
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Patel,
`140 S. Ct. 937 (2020) ............................................................................................................... 20
`
`ii
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 5:20-CV-05146-LHK-SVK
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 4 of 37
`
`Feller v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co.,
`2017 WL 6496803 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2017)...................................................................... 9, 10
`
`Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc.,
`326 F.R.D. 592 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ............................................................................................... 8
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................ 12, 24
`
`In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
`2016 WL 3029783 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2016) ......................................................................... 21
`
`In re Facebook Biometric Info. Priv. Litig.,
`326 F.R.D. 535 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ............................................................................................... 8
`
`In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig.,
`956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................. 14, 21
`
`In re Facebook, Inc. Cons. Priv. User Prof. Litig.,
`402 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Cal. 2019)...................................................................................... 16
`
`In re Facebook, Inc., Cons. Priv. User Prof. Litig.,
`402 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Cal. 2019)...................................................................................... 10
`
`In re Google Cookie,
`806 F.3d 125 (2015) ................................................................................................................. 14
`
`In re Tobacco II Cases,
`46 Cal. 4th 298 (Cal. 2009) ...................................................................................................... 18
`
`In re Whirlpool Corp. Front–Loading Washer Products Liab. Litig.,
`722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir.2013) ..................................................................................................... 18
`
`Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson,
`110 Cal.App. 3d 868 (1980) ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc.,
`293 F.R.D. 578 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) .............................................................................................. 18
`
`Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc.,
`602 Fed. Appx. 3 (2d Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................. 18
`
`Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
`765 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................ 18, 19
`
`Larson v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co.,
`2017 WL 4284163 (Cal. Super. Mar. 23, 2017)....................................................................... 11
`
`iii
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 5:20-CV-05146-LHK-SVK
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 5 of 37
`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 5 of 37
`
`Leyva v. Medline Ind., Inc.,
`716 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2013) ooo ccccccccecccsssccesseecesseecesseecesseceesueceesuecessueceeseecessueeesseecesseeeeses 19
`
`Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co.,
`S08 FRDs 237 (ND Cal: 201Asooo eso esc o uso eran us ous ou oa oe eeu o ue uso uso uous our our ouas 18
`
`Marsu, B.V. v. Walt DisneyCo.,
`ESS FB SEO52 (OUT Cre1999)ss sescceccsnccenscssscancns sss cece cies eee Geeta LeeRCE 22
`
`Morganv. U.S. Soccer Fed’n, Inc.,
`2019 WIL; 7166978 (CD: Cale Naw 8 2OT9) sciscs ccs cccsccscessnccanccenscenccanacascanscanrescrcscrcaceranecarets 9
`
`Motors, Inc. v. Times MirrorCo.,
`MS 0ea PSS NN (NIstra aa aaec a acca cance 19
`
`Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`2016 WI..A53 5057 (tD. Cal. ADE USO UG) os csccsctccsscccssnacicncncctecctecinies tics ctoestecstecietecetnadiacteds 24
`
`Oppermanv. Path,
`2016 WL 3844326 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2016) 0... eeeeeceececceeeeseeesceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeneeeees 14, 20, 23
`
`Parsons v. Ryan,
`754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014) oo. ceceeccceceeccecceeceeseeseeeseeseeseeeseesaeeseceseceeeeceaeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeneeeseenseens 25
`
`Patel v. Facebook,
`932 F.3d 1264 (Oth Cir. 2019) .oo..eeeeccecccecceseceseeseeeseceseeseeeseesseeseeeaeeaeesaeeseeeaeeeeeeaeeeaeeseeeeeeeees 20
`
`Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`802 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2015) oo. ceceecceecceccceceeceeseeseeeseeeaeeeeeeseeeeeeseeeaeeeseeeeeeeeaeeneeeeeensees 18, 19, 22
`
`Raffin v. Medicredit, Inc.,
`2017 WL 131745 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2017) ......ccceccccccsccescesceeseesseesceeseesseeseeeaeeeeeeeseseeneeeeeesees 25
`
`Riley v. California,
`STD Us BS (OVA) esos ooo peso uso sree ous ous ous one cua ue puro nega ous ous one a our on ea ue, 14
`
`Rodriguez v. City ofLos Angeles,
`DOTA WI 1251533446: D: Cals NGDE DOTA) wsscccsccceccsenccscccccccsecncacesescatets tesa caa eee eaeOe 23
`
`Rodriguez v. Hayes,
`SOL 30 1105 Ct Cit DOV)ss ssesssesssesssnesssusscasveuneausuaussnuasusscussteesnusasueueestautamuauuauiaes 10, 11
`
`Roley v. Google LLC,
`2020 WiL8675968 (ND. Cal, July 20; 2020) sccssccs secs cncs sccm caccarcmncrateaccuuccncnnscuuctees 10, 13, 17
`
`Royv. Cty. ofLos Angeles,
`DOS: WW SADR S CCL RD FURMD OU BY aise cieacitantcaacr tastes tact cittattaa staciittitas itaatetttes easiest 23
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 5:20-CV-05146-LHK-SVK
`
`iv
`
`oOoOoJNDBDoO&—WHNO
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 6 of 37
`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page6 of 37
`
`oOoOoJNDBDoO&—WHNO
`
`Shulman v. Group W. Prods., Inc.,
`18 Cal.4th 200 (1998)... cece cccccssccesscessecesecessecesseesecesscessecessecsecesecesseceseeeeseeesacessceeseeeaaes 14
`
`State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Superior Court,
`AS'Cal. App. 4th 1093: (Gals Agi. 1996)ess css oes o ese ns ous ous ou ou ous creer o us our one ous cus ous ouses 19
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co.,
`S27 FF OFS (OU Cie ZOO3) vccssccccccesccsseccccce sec ccsc cece GBI R GE GLO GIL SIO SEL SOSSST 12
`
`Tait v. BSH Home Appliances corp.,
`PEST RD AGG GOD). Cals DOT 2) cccecccessezzccs cesses cases ccna estes e sta 0a aS Oe LCE SSID 10, 18
`
`Torres v. Mercer CanyonsInc.,
`O35 -F 50 EES (OUR E20 Gs ascrascsaceraneraserasczanazancrancranerin an eianeian tras Qian tias Qias Ria Rein RAUB ATANARAS 8
`
`Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo,
`Be OG estcacstacstacestasitac as tactile ae ce acaa a eReataceRtasiatasn aE 12,19
`
`United States ex rel. Terry v. Wasatch Advantage Grp., LLC,
`327 F.R.D. 395 (E.D. Cal. 2018).......cccccccccccccesecessceeseeessecessecseeeseeesseceseeesaeeesecesseceueesseeenseeneeees 9
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (QOL) one ceeeeecccccccccescceseeeeseeesseceseeesaeceseeesaecessecaeeeseceseeseseeceaeeeseeeseeeseeeeseeesees 9,10
`
`Williams v. Apple, Inc.,
`2021 WL 2186223 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2021) .......ccecceccceeesceeceeeeeeeeeseeeseeeseeseeeneeeeees 9,10, 13, 24
`
`Wortmanv. Air New Zealand,
`326 F.R.D. 549 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ......cccccccccccccccccccesceesceeeseeeseeceseceseeceseceseeseseeeseeeeaeeeseeseeeeseeenseees 8
`
`Yahoo Customer Data BreachLitig.,
`2017 WL 3727318 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2017)......cccccccccccccesceeseeseeeseeeseeeeeseeeeeeeeeseeseeeseeeaeesaees 21
`
`Yokoyama v. Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co.,
`594 FSG TORT OU Cite ZOO ssosse sso cessor oun eus ees o ese ese so seu enous ous ous ous pesos o se euses 19
`
`Statutes
`
`CraCryCk 8 OB tacasccorsccsrsecseaserareecsneeeieecoreonensnseanierantenneesieentonseanseantoantenteashneaniestsesnneantoanteshs 6
`
`Gal PenGGUS: § ABA sess se cccsnssenccaccencnsrccnnscenccanccanccancsanccancuasceaa scence cance cancer ca cee ica 17
`
`Cal. Pen. Code § 496.........ccccccccccccescceescceseeesecesseesseceseeceaecessecsaecessecssesesseseaeseseeseaeeesecesecesseeeseeesaes 18
`
`CaPen Cade: § GB esecscccscsccescccsccssccsscccsnccenscenscaeacscccscncacmesccescoaacceacccamccancaaeaeseascnenecmescrescectcctte 16
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 5:20-CV-05146-LHK-SVK
`
`e
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 7 of 37
`
`Other Authorities(cid:3)
`
`Restatement (First) of Restitution § 128 (1937) ........................................................................... 21
`
`Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652H (1977) ............................................................................. 23
`
`Rules(cid:3)
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`vi
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 5:20-CV-05146-LHK-SVK
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 8 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on February 17, 2022 at 1:30 pm, before the Honorable
`Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Plaintiffs
`Patrick Calhoun, Elaine Crespo, Michael Henry, Dr. Rodney Johnson, Dr. Claudia Kindler, and
`Dr. Corinice Wilson (collectively, Plaintiffs), will and do hereby move the Court, pursuant to
`Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order certifying a
`class of (the “Class”):
`All Google Chrome users in the United States who did not enable “Sync”
`while browsing the web using Chrome (“Not Synced Chrome Users”) or who
`disabled “Sync” while browsing using Chrome (“Unsynced Users”), at any
`time between July 27, 2016 to the present (the “Class Period”). Browsing
`using the Chrome browser in Incognito mode is excluded from the Class.1
`
`Excluded from the proposed Class is Defendant Google LLC, its ultimate
`parent Alphabet, Inc. or any intermediate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates,
`officers and directors; any entity in which Google has a controlling interest;
`and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their
`staff and immediate family members. For the statutory larceny claim, to the
`extent the Court determines that individual damages calculations cannot be
`efficiently calculated on a class-wide basis, Plaintiffs in the alternative seek
`certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4) as to liability only.
`Plaintiffs further move for their appointment as class representatives and to appoint
`Lesley E. Weaver of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, David A. Straite of DiCello Levitt Gutzler
`LLC, and Jason “Jay” Barnes of Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC as class counsel.
`
`This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the incorporated
`Memorandum of Law, and the following declarations:
`1.
`Declaration of Jay Barnes dated October 14, 2021 (“Barnes Decl.”);
`2.
`Declaration of David Straite dated October 14, 2021 (“Straite Decl.”);
`3.
`Declaration of Lesley Weaver dated October 14, 2021 (“Weaver Decl.”), which
`attaches, among other exhibits, the following:
`
`
`1 All Chrome transmissions in Incognito browsing are the subject of the Brown v. Google action,
`5:20-cv-3664-LHK-SVK (“Brown”).
`
`1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 5:20-CV-05146-LHK-SVK
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 9 of 37
`
`The declarations of Proposed Class Representatives Patrick Calhoun
`a.
`(“Calhoun Decl.”), Elaine Crespo (“Crespo Decl.”), Michael Henry (“Henry
`Decl.”), Dr. Rodney Johnson (“Johnson Decl.”), Dr. Claudia Kindler (“Kindler
`Decl.”), and Dr. Corinice Wilson (“Wilson Decl.”).
`Report of Dr. Russell Mangum (“Mangum Rpt.”). Dr. Mangum is an
`b.
`expert in economic analysis and damages quantification in matters related to
`intellectual property and technology, antitrust, class certification, statistical
`analysis, and complex commercial disputes, with testimony in over 100 matters
`before local, state, and federal courts. Dr. Mangum is also an Associate Professor
`of Economics in the School of Business and Economics at Concordia University
`Irvine.
`Report of Prof. Leslie K. John (“John Rpt.”). Professor John is the
`c.
`Marvin Bower Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business
`School and is an expert in behavioral economics. Much of Professor John’s
`research falls in the domain of the psychology of privacy decision-making.
`Report of Prof. Joseph Turow (“Turow Rpt.”). Professor Turow is
`d.
`Robert Lewis Shayon Professor of Media Systems & Industries at the University
`of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication. A 2005 New York
`Times Magazine article referred to Turow as “probably the reigning academic
`expert on media fragmentation.” In 2010, the New York Times called him “the
`ranking wise man on some thorny new-media and marketing topics.” In 2012, the
`TRUSTe internet privacy-management organization designated him a “privacy
`pioneer” for his research and writing on marketing and digital-privacy.
`Report of Prof. Zubair Shafiq (“Shafiq Rpt.”). Dr. Shafiq is an Associate
`e.
`Professor of Computer Science at University of California, Davis. His research
`focuses on making the Internet more private, secure, and performant using
`measurement and machine learning techniques.
`Report of Richard Smith (“Smith Rpt.”). Mr. Smith is the owner and a
`f.
`consultant with Boston Software Forensics LLC, providing consulting services to
`the legal industry involving the analysis of software systems for technology-
`related litigation and privacy and security reviews. Previously, he worked at the
`Privacy Foundation as the chief technology officer (CTO) and was a founder and
`CEO of Phar Lap Software, Inc.
`
`In addition, and contemporaneously herewith, Plaintiffs submit a Request for Judicial
`Notice (“RJN”) of the Exhibits to Plaintiffs’ original complaint, attached to the Weaver
`Declaration submitted in support of this motion. This motion may also be supported by additional
`rebuttal evidence submitted on reply, and any further argument presented to the Court.
`
`2
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 5:20-CV-05146-LHK-SVK
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 10 of 37
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
` INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The proposed class is easily certifiable. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of Google’s uniform
`Chrome contract of adhesion drafted by Google and governed by California and federal law
`nationwide. Contract claims are typically well-suited for class treatment. This case is no different.
` Google promises Chrome users that they “don’t need to provide any personal information
`to use Chrome” and “[t]he personal information that Chrome stores won’t be sent to Google
`unless you choose to store that data in your Google Account by turning on sync[.]” See Order
`Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss With Leave to Amend, March 17, 2021,
`ECF No. 142, (“MTD Order”) at 19. These promises are identical or “very similar” in each
`version of the contract from July 27, 2016 to the present. Id. at 7, n. 2. Chrome also promises that
`the default state is not synced (“Sync is only enabled if you choose”). The default is that Chrome
`will not send and Google is not permitted to collect users’ personal information unless the user
`finds the Sync toggle and enables it. Thus, no action is needed for the promised privacy
`protections to apply. These promises apply by operation of contract and law regardless of any
`individual action and whether an individual was even aware of the Sync feature.
` Despite these promises, Google admits, categorically, that it “collects and uses data from
`[Chrome] Users who have not enabled sync[.]” Ex. T, Google’s Responses and Objections to
`Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 20 (“Resp. to ROG No. 20”).2 Plaintiffs’ experts Richard Smith and
`Zubair Shafiq confirm that this practice is ongoing and a common function of Chrome’s design.
`Google says that it will not “cease collecting and using such data.” Id.
`Instead of ceasing collection or clarifying disclosures, Google argues that its multiple
`privacy policies, which vaguely disclose data collection, override its specific contractual
`promises to the contrary. Google contends that collection of personal information from Chrome
`is “consistent with Google’s Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Chrome Privacy Notice.” Id. The
`Court has already rejected this defense. See MTD Order at 16-17 (“To the contrary, Google’s
`
`2 Unless otherwise indicated “Ex.” refers to exhibits attached to the Weaver Decl.
`1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 5:20-CV-05146-LHK-SVK
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 11 of 37
`
`
`
`representations might have led a reasonable user to believe that Google did not collect his or her
`personal information when the user was not synced”).3 The mounting evidence does too, as
`Google’s internal documents show and Plaintiffs’ experts affirm that Google’s data collection
`practices, and how it uses that data, are far beyond its disclosures.
`
`Google may argue that individual Chrome users cannot complain about data collection if
`they fail to employ “privacy protections,” such as third-party cookie blockers. This is akin to a
`thief criticizing the victim for failing to use a second lock. Google’s argument is without merit.
`
`
`
` Thus, inquiries into protective measures are irrelevant,
`because Google defeats them by common design. As Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai candidly
`admitted internally, “
`
`
`Ex. CC (GOOG-CALH-00044423, at 438).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3(cid:3)Even if the Court were to reconsider, the ruling would apply on a class-wide basis.(cid:3)
`2
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 5:20-CV-05146-LHK-SVK
`
` Ex. FF (GOOG-CABR-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 12 of 37
`
`
`
`00125420, at 420)
`
`
`
` It does so every day.
`Damages are easily calculated on a class-wide basis using a common formula. Contract
`damages will be the same for every Chrome user, subject only to formulaic adjustments, as will
`fixed statutory damages under the CIPA. For privacy tort and UCL claims, Plaintiffs seek general
`privacy damages resulting from the data collection (not individual consequential damages)
`determined by objective “reasonable person” standards. Economic damages are susceptible to
`class-wide calculation, as explained by Prof. Mangum, based on restitution or unjust enrichment.
`Plaintiffs respectfully seek certification of six causes of action: (1) breach of contract
`(Count 8); (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and unfair dealing (Count 9);
`(3) intrusion upon seclusion (Count 7); (4) statutory larceny (Count 13); (5) violation of the
`California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Count 14), and (6) violation of the California
`Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA) (Count 5).
`
` STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`4.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`
`Whether the Court should certify the Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).
`Whether the Court should certify the Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
`In the alternative for the Statutory Larceny claim, whether the Court should
`certify the Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).
`Whether the Court should appoint the Plaintiffs as class representatives and
`appoint class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B) and 23(g).
` STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A. Google’s Promises in its Contracts and Terms of Services Operate Are
`Uniform And Central to Liability and Google’s Consent Defenses
`
`Chrome’s sign-in screens and Google’s disclosures relating to Sync are uniform across
`the Class Period. To download Chrome, users are presented with a clickwrap agreement requiring
`“agreement” to Google’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. This Court has found that the
`operative terms and privacy policy make similar representations across the Class Period. MTD
`Order at 4-5 (“[p]rior versions of the [March 31, 2020] Terms of Service made similar
`statements”) and at 6 (“[s]ubsequent versions of Google’s Privacy Policy made similar
`
`3
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 5:20-CV-05146-LHK-SVK
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 13 of 37
`
`
`
`disclosures”). “From April 14, 2014 until March 31, 2020, Google’s Terms of Service invoked
`Google’s Privacy Policy” by reference to the “privacy policy or additional terms for particular
`services.” Id. at 5. Thus, the Chrome Privacy Notice is incorporated into Google’s contract with
`Chrome users for the entire Class Period.
`The Court’s Order identifies the operative Terms, including the Chrome Privacy Notice,
`noting that California law “govern[s] all disputes[.]” Id. at 4-7. The Order identifies key
`disclosures made in Google’s Privacy Policy in effect from June 28, 2016 to August 29, 2016
`and correctly notes that “[s]ubsequent versions of Google’s Privacy Policy made similar
`disclosures.” Id. at 6. And the Order identifies statements central to this case:
`
`(cid:120) “You don’t need to provide any personal information to use Chrome, but
`Chrome has different modes you can use to change or improve your browsing
`experience. Privacy practices are different depending on the mode you’re
`using[;]” and,
`(cid:120) “The personal information that Chrome stores won’t be sent to Google unless
`you choose to store that data in your Google account by turning on sync[.]”4 Id.
`at 6-7.
`Upon Chrome’s download, all Class members are exposed to the same First Run
`Experience (“FRE”), a set of screens that Chrome sends users through the first time that they use
`the browser. Plaintiffs’ expert recorded those FREs through the Class Period. See Shafiq Rpt.
`Exhibit C. The FREs give Chrome users the option to sign-in. Users who choose to do so are
`shown a pop-up asking, “Turn on Sync?,” under which Google states that it will “Sync your
`bookmarks, passwords, history, and more on all your devices.” If the user clicks “Yes, I’m in,”
`“Google may use your history to personalize Search and other Google services.” Id. Google made
`identical or similar representations throughout the Class Period and
`
`
`
`4 Though the MTD Order focuses upon two primary promises, Google violates more: (1) “Sync
`is only enabled if you choose.”; (2) “In general, the fact that you use Chrome to access Google
`services, such as Gmail, does not cause Google to receive any additional personally identifying
`information about you.”; and (3) Unless you turn on sync and Web & App Activity to allow
`Google to use your Chrome history, “Google will only use your Chrome data after it’s
`anonymized and aggregated with data from other users.” Ex. N at Exhibit 25, 6 of 11; Exhibit
`26, 2 of 11 and 7 of 11. See also Ex. AAA (Plaintiffs’ Response to Google Interrogatory No. 7)
`(stating currently known uniform false or misleading statements or omissions made to not-synced
`users).
`
`4
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 5:20-CV-05146-LHK-SVK
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 14 of 37
`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 14 of 37
`
`Shafiq Rpt. Jd.; Ex. V (Google Resp. to RFA 37).
`
`Once downloaded, a Sync toggle appears onthe top right of the browser. When a Chrome user
`
`is not synced, the browserpresents the user with an option to “Turn on Sync” in a large blue
`
`button. This is identical for all Class members. Whena userclicks to Sync, Google takes them
`
`through a process presenting the same promises from the Sync screen during the FRE ofa third
`
`Ww
`
`n
`
`party. Id.
`
`B. Google’s Conduct in Collecting and Using Date Taken From UsersIs Subject
`to Common Proof that Predominates
`
`Google’s actions are also uniform. Google admits that it “collects and uses data from
`
`[Chrome] Users who have not enabled sync[.]” Ex. T (Resp. to ROG No. 20); Google’s Answer
`
`to the First Amended Complaint, May 17, 2021, ECF No. 195 (“Ans.”), § 4 (“certain Google
`
`services” are designed to “send certain information to Google” including “IP address, HTTP
`
`headers (which maycontain information about the user’s browseror device (i.e. user-agent),
`
`NM —ll
`
`cookies, referrer URL, and the URL ofthe website requesting the service” regardless of syne
`status)); see also Ans. § 153 (Sync status has no impact on X-Client-Data header)iii
`
`NmNWwWN
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`Case No. 5:20-cV-05146-LHK-SVK
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05146-YGR Document 340 Filed 10/14/21 Page 15 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` This is
`“personal information” as a matter of law. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140(o)(1), (x) (IP address,
`Internet activity, browsing history, cookies, pixel tags, mobile ad identifiers, customer numbers