Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 1 of 19
`
`
`
`Mark N. Todzo (Bar No. 168389)
`Eric S. Somers (Bar No. 139050)
`LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
`503 Divisadero Street
`San Francisco, CA 94117
`Telephone: 415-913-7800
`Facsimile: 415-759-4112
`mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com
`
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`
`[Additional counsel on signature page.]
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: ________________
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`ASIF KUMANDAN, MELISSA SPURR, and
`MELISSA SPURR, as guardian of B.S., a minor,
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability
`company, and ALPHABET INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. ____________
`
`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 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`Plaintiffs Asif Kumandan, Melissa Spurr, and Melissa Spurr as guardian of B.S. (collectively
`
`2
`
`“Plaintiffs”) complain upon knowledge as to themselves and their own actions and upon information
`
`3
`
`and belief as to all other matters against Defendants Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC (collectively,
`
`4
`
`“Google”), as follows:
`
`5
`
`6
`
`SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
`
`1.
`
`This action arises from Defendants’ unlawful and intentional recording of
`
`7
`
`individuals’ confidential communications without their consent from approximately May 18, 2016
`
`8
`
`to the Present (the “Class Period”) in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal
`
`9
`
`Code §632, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §1750, and California Unfair
`
`10
`
`Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.
`
`11
`
`2.
`
`Google Assistant is a voice-recognition software program developed by Google that
`
`12
`
`allows individuals to use their voice to ask questions and receive answers based on information
`
`13
`
`available on the internet. Google preloads Google Assistant on devices, including its own smart
`
`14
`
`home speakers, Google Home and Google Home Mini, and its Pixel smartphones. Google Assistant
`
`15
`
`also comes pre-installed on most smartphones running Google’s Android operating system and
`
`16
`
`many other electronics manufactured by third parties (“Google Assistant Enabled Devices”).
`
`17
`
`3.
`
`Google Assistant Enabled Devices are only supposed to record conversations
`
`18
`
`preceded by the utterance “Okay, Google” or “Hey, Google” (“hot word(s)”) or the pressing of a
`
`19
`
`button on the device. California law prohibits the recording of oral communications without the
`
`20
`
`consent of all parties to the communication. California’s privacy laws recognize the unique privacy
`
`21
`
`interest implicated by the recording of someone’s voice. That privacy interest has been heightened
`
`22
`
`by companies exploiting consumers’ private data.
`
`23
`
`4.
`
`Individuals who have purchased or used Google Assistant Enabled Devices and
`
`24
`
`interacted with Google Assistant have not consented to Google recording conversations where
`
`25
`
`“Okay, Google” or “Hey, Google” were not uttered or where no button has been pressed. Similarly,
`
`26
`
`minors with no Google account who did not set up Google Assistant Enabled Devices have not
`
`27
`
`consented to these recordings.
`
`28
`
`
`
`1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. ____________
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`5.
`
`On July 10, 2019, Belgian news outlet VRT NWS reported that Google was using
`
`2
`
`Google Assistant Enabled Devices to record millions of individuals, including minors, without their
`
`3
`
`consent.1 According to the VRT NWS report, Google Assistant Enabled Devices record individuals’
`
`4
`
`conversations where no hot word had been uttered or no button had been pressed and hires people
`
`5
`
`to listen to them to improve the functionality of Google Assistant. Each recording is a violation of
`
`6
`
`California law.
`
`7
`
`6.
`
`Billions of Google Assistant Enabled Devices were sold to consumers during the
`
`8
`
`Class Period. Many of these consumers would not have bought their Google Assistant Enabled
`
`9
`
`Devices if they had known Google was recording their conversations without consent.
`
`10
`
`7.
`
`Given the concealed and secretive nature of Defendants’ conduct, more evidence
`
`11
`
`supporting the allegations in this Complaint will be uncovered after a reasonable opportunity for
`
`12
`
`discovery.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This Court also has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C §1332(d), because the amount in controversy for the Class exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of
`
`interest and costs, there are more than 100 putative class members defined below and minimal
`
`diversity exists because the majority of putative class members are citizens of a state different than
`
`Defendants.
`
`9.
`
`This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendants because their principal
`
`place of business is in California. Additionally, Defendants are subject to specific personal
`
`jurisdiction in this State because a substantial part of the events and conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs’
`
`claims occurred in this State.
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because a substantial
`
`portion of the conduct described in this Complaint was carried out in this District. Furthermore,
`
`
`1
`https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2019/07/10/google-employees-are-eavesdropping-even-in-
`flemish-living-rooms/ (last accessed July 25, 2019).
`
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. ____________
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`Defendants Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC are headquartered in this District and subject to personal
`
`2
`
`jurisdiction in this District.
`
`3
`
`11.
`
`Intradistrict Assignment (L.R. 3-2(c) and (e) and 3-5(b)): This action arises in
`
`4
`
`Santa Clara County, in that a substantial part of the events which give rise to the claims asserted
`
`5
`
`herein occurred in Santa Clara County. Pursuant to L.R. 3-2(e), all civil actions which arise in Santa
`
`6
`
`Clara County shall be assigned to the San Jose Division.
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`PARTIES
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Asif Kumandan is a natural person and citizen of the State of New York and
`
`10
`
`a resident of Kings County.
`
`11
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Melissa Spurr is a natural person and citizen of the State of New Jersey and
`
`12
`
`a resident of Union County.
`
`13
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff B.S. is a minor and brings this suit by and through her legal guardian,
`
`14
`
`Plaintiff Melissa Spurr. Plaintiff B.S. is a natural person and citizen of the State of New Jersey and
`
`15
`
`a resident of Union County.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`B.
`
`Defendants
`
`15.
`
`Defendant Alphabet Inc. (“Alphabet”) is a Delaware corporation, organized and
`
`18
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 1600
`
`19
`
`Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043-1351. Alphabet is the successor issuer
`
`20
`
`to, and parent holding company of, Google LLC. Alphabet owns all the equity interests in Google
`
`21
`
`LLC. The reorganization of Google LLC into Alphabet was completed in 2015.
`
`22
`
`16.
`
`Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) is a limited liability company existing under the
`
`23
`
`laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 1600 Amphitheatre
`
`24
`
`Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`3
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. ____________
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
`
`2
`
`I.
`
`GOOGLE AND GOOGLE ASSISTANT
`
`3
`
`17.
`
`Google’s unofficial motto has always been “don’t be evil.” Google was founded in
`
`4
`
`1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin as a search engine website. Google’s success led to it launching
`
`5
`
`numerous other products.
`
`6
`
`18.
`
`One of these products is Google Assistant. Google Assistant is a computer program
`
`7
`
`developed by Google that is pre-installed on numerous electronic devices, including phones,
`
`8
`
`speakers, displays, cars, tv’s, laptops, and tablets, manufactured by Google and other companies
`
`9
`
`(“Google Assistant Enabled Devices”).
`
`10
`
`19.
`
`Google Assistant is intended to provide its users with easy access to information
`
`11
`
`available on the internet and/or control over other internet-connected devices using their voice. To
`
`12
`
`facilitate this process, Google Assistant listens for two sets of “hot words” – “Hey Google” and
`
`13
`
`“Okay Google.” These phrases indicate the start of a user command.
`
`14
`
`20.
`
`Google Assistant Enabled Devices listen for these hot words by recording and
`
`15
`
`analyzing short snippets of audio from their surroundings. This audio is stored locally in the Google
`
`16
`
`Assistant Enabled Device’s random-access memory (“RAM”). Audio stored in a Google Assistant
`
`17
`
`Enabled Device’s RAM is continuously overwritten as new audio is recorded and analyzed until a
`
`18
`
`hot word is detected.
`
`19
`
`21. When a Google Assistant Enabled Device detects a hot word, it switches into “active
`
`20
`
`listening” mode. At this point, the Google Assistant Enabled Device begins transmitting audio to
`
`21
`
`Google for analysis. The purpose of this analysis is to allow the Google Assistant Enabled Device
`
`22
`
`to respond to the user commands issued after one of the hot words. For example, if a user asks
`
`23
`
`Google Assistant “Hey Google, what is the weather in Los Angeles?” the Google Assistant will
`
`24
`
`transmit that audio to Google for analysis and to provide a response. Users can also ask Google
`
`25
`
`Assistant to, among other things, provide reminders (“Remind me to pick up groceries at 5 P.M.”),
`
`26
`
`set timers (“Set a timer for 20 minutes”), or control other internet-connected “smart devices” such
`
`27
`
`as a television or music player.
`
`28
`
`
`
`4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. ____________
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`22.
`
`Significantly, Google Assistant Enabled Devices are only supposed to transmit
`
`2
`
`recordings of audio to Google if users issue one of the hot words or otherwise approve of “active
`
`3
`
`listening” mode by pressing a button on certain Google Assistant Enabled Devices. Google
`
`4
`
`accordingly, denies recording other user conversations:
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`Is Google Home recording all of my conversations?
`
`Google Home listens in short (a few seconds) snippets for the hotword. Those
`snippets are deleted if the hotword is not detected, and none of that information
`leaves your device until the hotword is heard. When Google Home detects that
`you’ve said “Ok Google” or “Hey Google”, or that you've physically long pressed
`the top of your Google Home device, the LEDs on top of the device light up to tell
`you that recording is happening, Google Home records what you say, and sends
`that recording (including the few-second hotword recording) to Google in order to
`fulfill your request. You can delete these recordings through My Activity anytime.2
`
`23.
`
`There are approximately 2.3 billion Google Assistant Enabled devices in the world.
`
`This includes at least 51 million Google Home voice activated speakers – devices that function like
`
`a radio that can respond to user commands – and more than 2 billion smartphones running Google’s
`
`Android operating system.
`
`II.
`
`GOOGLE ASSISTANT IS RECORDING INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT THEIR
`CONSENT
`
`24.
`
`On July 10, 2019, VRT NWS, a Belgian news media outlet, reported that “thousands
`
`17
`
`of [Google] employees” are systematically listening to audio files recorded by Google Home smart
`
`18
`
`speakers and the Google Assistant smartphone app from devices around world, including audio that
`
`19
`
`does not contain a hot word.
`
`20
`
`25.
`
`According to VRT NWS, when an individual interacts with Google Assistant’s
`
`21
`
`speech recognition feature, the software automatically generates a script of the conversation which
`
`22
`
`is then stored along with the audio recording. Google employees and subcontractors are then tasked
`
`23
`
`with analyzing whether Google Assistant has accurately interpreted the individual’s speech. To do
`
`24
`
`so, Google’s subcontractors log into the online tool and are presented with a list of audio files and
`
`25
`
`corresponding transcripts to analyze. The reviewers double check that “every cough and every
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`2
`https://support.google.com/googlenest/answer/7072285?hl=en (last accessed July 25,
`2019).
`
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. ____________
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`audible comma” is reflected in the transcript. VRT NWS reports that they “have 3 sources
`
`2
`
`confirming that this is the way Google works.”
`
`3
`
`26.
`
`VRT NWS was given access to “more than a thousand” audio recordings and
`
`4
`
`identified 153 conversations “that should never have been recorded and during which the command
`
`5
`
`‘Okay Google’ was clearly not given.” According to VRT NWS these recordings include “bedroom
`
`6
`
`conversations, conversations between parents and their children” as well as “professional phone
`
`7
`
`calls containing lots of private information.”
`
`8
`
`27.
`
`The level of detail in the recordings reviewed by VRT NWS was substantial enough
`
`9
`
`to enable VRT NWS to identify the individuals without VRT NWS having any of their information.
`
`10
`
`VRT NWS tracked down one couple and played the audio recording from their Google Assistant
`
`11
`
`Enabled Device. The couple immediately identified the voices as those “of their son and their
`
`12
`
`grandchild.”
`
`13
`
`28.
`
`VRT NWS’s report reveals that instead of only recording what an individual says
`
`14
`
`after uttering a hot word, Google Assistant Enabled Devices record anything said that is preceded
`
`15
`
`by anything that remotely sounds like a hot word, and that even after Google discovers that it has
`
`16
`
`wrongly recorded a conversation, it nonetheless keeps and analyzes the recording.
`
`17
`
`29.
`
`In response to VRT NWS’s report, Google confirmed that their language reviewers
`
`18
`
`listen to recorded and stored conversations, claiming that only “0.2 percent” of all audio snippets
`
`19
`
`are subject to human review. Google also acknowledged that “devices that have the Google
`
`20
`
`Assistant built in may experience what we call a ‘false accept.’ This means that there was some
`
`21
`
`noise or words in the background that our software interpreted to be the hot word (like “Ok
`
`22
`
`Google”).” Google defends their actions as “necessary to creating products like Google Assistant.”
`
`23
`
`30.
`
`Significantly, Google Assistant makes no distinction between the voices of adults
`
`24
`
`and children. As a result, Google Assistant Enabled Devices are recording children and transmitting
`
`25
`
`that information to Google whenever they say a word that remotely sounds like a hot word to the
`
`26
`
`Google Assistant Enabled Device. This is especially troubling as children cannot consent to being
`
`27
`
`recorded by the Google Assistant Enabled Device.
`
`28
`
`
`
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. ____________
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`III. GOOGLE UNLAWFULLY RECORDED PLAINTIFFS WITHOUT THEIR
`CONSENT
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiffs here each either owned and/or interacted with a Google Assistant Enabled
`
`Device during the Class Period and were recorded by Google without their consent.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff Spurr owned a Google Home device during the Class Period. Plaintiffs
`
`Spurr and B.S. interacted with this Google Home device repeatedly during the Class Period. As
`
`described above, Google and this Google Assistant Enabled Device unlawfully recorded Plaintiffs
`
`Spurr and B.S. without their consent on multiple occasions, including when they failed to utter a hot
`
`word.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff Kumandan owned a Google Pixel smartphone with Google Assistant
`
`installed during the Class Period. Plaintiff Kumandan interacted with the Google Assistant on his
`
`Google Pixel repeatedly during the Class Period. As described above, Google and this Google
`
`Assistant Enabled Device unlawfully recorded Plaintiff Kumandan without his consent on multiple
`
`occasions, including when he failed to utter a hot word.
`
`34.
`
`At no point did Plaintiffs consent to these unlawful recordings. Google does not
`
`disclose that it records conversations that are not preceded by a hot word. Plaintiffs Spurr and
`
`Kumandan, therefore, did not agree to be recorded by their Google Assistant Enabled Devices,
`
`respectively. Moreover, Google could not have obtained consent from Plaintiff B.S., a minor
`
`without a Google account.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiffs would like to continue to use Google Assistant Enabled Devices in the
`
`future, but will be uncertain as to whether Google has ceased its unlawful practices and violation of
`
`their privacy rights without the equitable relief requested herein, specifically an injunction
`
`prohibiting Google from engaging in the unlawful practices alleged herein.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
`
`individually and on behalf of the following Class:
`
`All individuals who were recorded by a Google Assistant Enabled Device without
`their consent from at least as early as May 18, 2016 to the present (the “Class
`
`7
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. ____________
`
`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 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Period”). Within the Class is a Subclass of those who are or were minor children
`and were recorded by a Google Assistant Enabled Device during the Class Period.3
`
`37.
`
`Excluded from each Class are: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action
`
`and any members of their families; (2) Defendants, Defendants’ subsidiaries, parents, successors,
`
`predecessors, and any entity in which Defendants or their parents have a controlling interest and
`
`their current or former employees, officers, and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file
`
`a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have been
`
`finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendants’
`
`counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.
`
`38.
`
`Ascertainability: Membership of the Class is defined based on objective criteria,
`
`and individual members will be identifiable from Defendants’ records, including the Google
`
`accounts associated with each Google Assistant Enabled Device.
`
`39.
`
`Numerosity: The exact number of members of the Class is unknown and unavailable
`
`to Plaintiffs at this time, but individual joinder in this case is impracticable. The Class likely consists
`
`of thousands of individuals, if not millions of individuals, and their members can be identified
`
`through Defendants’ records.
`
`40.
`
`Predominant Common Questions: The Class’s claims present common questions
`
`of law and fact, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect individual Class
`
`members. Common questions for the Class include, but are not limited to, the following:
`
`a.
`
`Whether Google Assistant Enabled Devices record individuals absent that
`
`user uttering a hot word or otherwise activating the device;
`
`b.
`
`Whether Google Assistant Enabled Devices record children who interact with
`
`them; and
`
`c.
`
`Whether individuals who use Google Assistant Enabled Devices have a
`
`reasonable expectation of privacy under California law.
`
`
`3
`Plaintiffs have defined the Class based on currently available information and hereby
`reserves the right to amend the definition of the Class, including, without limitation, the Class
`Period.
`
`8
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. ____________
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`41.
`
`Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the
`
`2
`
`proposed Class. Plaintiffs and Class members suffered an invasion of privacy as a result of
`
`3
`
`Defendants’ wrongful conduct that is uniform across the Class.
`
`4
`
`42.
`
`Adequate Representation: Plaintiffs have and will continue to fairly and adequately
`
`5
`
`represent and protect the interests of the Class. They have retained counsel competent and
`
`6
`
`experienced in complex litigation and class actions, including privacy violations. Plaintiffs have no
`
`7
`
`interest that is antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendants have no defenses unique to
`
`8
`
`Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf
`
`9
`
`of the members of the Class, and they have the resources to do so. Neither Plaintiffs nor their
`
`10
`
`counsel have any interest adverse to those of the other members of the Class.
`
`11
`
`43.
`
`Substantial Benefits: This class action is appropriate for certification because class
`
`12
`
`proceedings are superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
`
`13
`
`controversy and joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable. This proposed class action
`
`14
`
`presents fewer management difficulties than individual litigation, and provides the benefits of single
`
`15
`
`adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Class treatment
`
`16
`
`will create economies of time, effort, and expense and promote uniform decision-making.
`
`17
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiffs reserve the right to revise the foregoing class allegations and definitions
`
`18
`
`based on facts learned and legal developments following additional investigation, discovery, or
`
`19
`
`otherwise.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`CALIFORNIA LAW APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE CLASS
`
`45.
`
`California’s substantive laws apply to every member of the Class, regardless of
`
`22
`
`where in the United States the Class member resides. Defendants’ Terms of Service state: “By using
`
`23
`
`our Services, you are agreeing to these terms. Please read them carefully.”
`
`24
`
`46.
`
`Specifically, Defendants’ Terms of Service state under the subheading “About These
`
`25
`
`Terms” that: “The laws of California, U.S.A., excluding California’s conflict of laws rules, will
`
`26
`
`apply to any disputes arising out of or relating to these terms or the Services. All claims arising out
`
`27
`
`of or relating to these terms or the Services will be litigated exclusively in the federal or state courts
`
`28
`
`
`
`9
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. ____________
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`of Santa Clara County, California, USA, and you and Google consent to personal jurisdiction in
`
`2
`
`those courts.”4
`
`3
`
`47.
`
`By choosing California law for the resolution of disputes in the agreement, Google
`
`4
`
`concedes that it is appropriate for this Court to apply California law to the instant dispute.
`
`5
`
`48.
`
`Further, California’s substantive laws may be constitutionally applied to the claims
`
`6
`
`of Plaintiffs and the Class under the Due Process Clause, 14th Amend. §1, and the Full Faith and
`
`7
`
`Credit Clause, Art. IV §1 of the U.S. Constitution. California has significant contact, or significant
`
`8
`
`aggregation of contacts, to the claims asserted by Plaintiffs and all Class members, thereby creating
`
`9
`
`state interests that ensure that the choice of California state law is not arbitrary or unfair.
`
`10
`
`49.
`
`Defendants’ United States headquarters and principal place of business is located in
`
`11
`
`California. Defendants also own property and conduct substantial business in California, and
`
`12
`
`therefore California has an interest in regulating Defendants’ conduct under its laws. Defendants’
`
`13
`
`decision to reside in California and avail itself of California’s laws, and to engage in the challenged
`
`14
`
`conduct from and emanating out of California, renders the application of California law to the claims
`
`15
`
`herein constitutionally permissible.
`
`16
`
`50.
`
`California is also the state from which Defendants’ alleged misconduct emanated.
`
`17
`
`This conduct similarly injured and affected Plaintiffs and all other Class members.
`
`18
`
`51.
`
`The application of California laws to the Class is also appropriate under California’s
`
`19
`
`choice of law rules because California has significant contacts to the claims of Plaintiffs and the
`
`20
`
`proposed Class, and California has a greater interest in applying its laws here than any other
`
`21
`
`interested state.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act
`
`
`4
`See https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en-US (last accessed July 23, 2019).
`
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. ____________
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`Cal. Penal Code §632
`(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the preceding allegations of this Complaint with
`
`the same force and effect as if fully restated herein.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiffs and Class members owned or interacted with Google Assistant through
`
`Google Assistant Enabled Devices during the Class Period.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiffs and Class members
`
`reasonably expected, based on Google’s
`
`representations, that Google was not recording them unless they uttered one of the hot words.
`
`55.
`
`Despite Google’s representations, Plaintiffs’ Google Assistant Enabled Devices
`
`created recordings that were transmitted to Google of interactions not preceded by the utterance of
`
`a hot word during the Class Period. These recordings were made without Plaintiffs’ consent.
`
`56.
`
`Additionally, Plaintiffs and the Class members who are minors never consented to
`
`being recorded by Google, nor did Google even attempt to seek such consent. The parents of
`
`Plaintiffs and Class members who are minors likewise never consented to Google recording their
`
`children’s interactions with such Google Assistant Enabled Devices.
`
`57.
`
`Google has publicly acknowledged in news reports that such unauthorized recording
`
`occurred during the Class Period. See ¶28 above.
`
`58.
`
`By recording Plaintiffs and the Class members when they didn’t use hot words or
`
`otherwise consent, Google “intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential
`
`communication” used an “electronic amplifying or recording device to . . . record the confidential
`
`communication” in violation of California law. See Cal. Penal Code §632.
`
`59.
`
`Google is able, and the Court should require it, to destroy the recordings of Plaintiffs’
`
`and the Class members’ interactions with Google Assistant Enabled devices, and to implement
`
`functionality sufficient to prevent unauthorized recordings in the future.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class, seek: (1) an injunction requiring
`
`Google to obtain consent prior to recording a minor’s Google Assistant interactions and to delete
`
`those recordings already made, and to implement functionality sufficient to prevent unauthorized
`
`11
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. ____________
`
`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 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`recordings in the future; (2) damages of $5,000 per violation under Cal. Penal Code §637.2; and (3)
`
`2
`
`costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees under Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5.
`
`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
`
`
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
`Cal. Business & Professions Code §17200
`(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the preceding allegations of this Complaint with
`
`the same force and effect as if fully restated herein.
`
`62.
`
`Google engaged in business acts and practices deemed “unlawful” under the UCL,
`
`because, as alleged above, Google unlawfully recorded and stored Plaintiffs and Class members’
`
`interactions without consent in violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code
`
`§632, and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §1750, et seq.
`
`63.
`
`Google also engaged in business acts and practices deemed “unlawful” under the
`
`UCL, because, Google unlawfully recorded and stored Plaintiff B.S.’s and minor Class members’
`
`interactions without consent, which violates public policy as declared by specific statutory
`
`provisions, including California Family Code §6701 and §6710, which prohibit Defendants from
`
`obtaining consent by minors.
`
`64.
`
`Specifically, California Family Code §6701 states that: “A minor cannot do any of
`
`the following: (a) Give a delegation of power . . . .” California Family Code §6710 states that:
`
`“Except as otherwise provided by statute, a contract of a minor may be disaffirmed by the minor
`
`before majority or within a reasonable time afterwards or, in case of the minor’s death within that
`
`period, by the minor’s heirs or personal representative.”
`
`65.
`
`Google did not obtain the minor Plaintiff B.S.’s consent to record their confidential
`
`communications. Google could not obtain consent to record the minor Plaintiff B.S.’s confidential
`
`communications. To the extent that Google attempts to claim that it obtained the minor Plaintiff
`
`B.S.’s consent, pursuant to California Family Code §6710, Plaintiff B.S. disaffirms such consent.
`
`66.
`
`Google also engaged in business acts or practices deemed “unfair” under the UCL
`
`because, as alleged above, Google failed to disclose during the Class Period that these Google
`
`Assistant Enabled Devices, including Google Home and Android phones, were recording, storing,
`
`12
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. ____________
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 1 Filed 07/25/19 Page 14 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`and analyzing Plaintiffs’ and the Class members’ speech without their consent. Unfair acts under
`
`2
`
`the UCL have been interpreted using three different tests: (1) whether the public policy which is a
`
`3
`
`predicate to a consumer unfair competition action under the unfair prong of the UCL is tethered to
`
`4
`
`specific constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions; (2) whether the gravity of the harm to the
`
`5
`
`consumer caused by the challenged business practice outweighs the utility of the defendant’s
`
`6
`
`conduct; and (3) whether the consumer injury is substantial, not outweighed by any countervailing
`
`7
`
`benefits to consumers or competition, and is an injury that consumers themselves could not
`
`8
`
`reasonably have avoided. Defendants’ conduct is unfair under each of these tests. Google’s conduct
`
`9
`
`alleged is unfair under all of these tests.
`
`10
`
`67.
`
`As described above, Google’s conduct violates the policies underlying California’s
`
`11
`
`Privacy Law as well as Family Code §6710. The gravity of the harm of Google’s secret recording
`
`12
`
`of Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ communications, including those by minors, is significant and
`
`13
`
`there is no corresponding benefit to consumers of such conduct. Finally, because Plaintiffs and
`
`14
`
`Class members were completely unaware of Google’s secret recordings, they could not have
`
`15
`
`possibly avoided the