Case 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 1 of 23
`
`ANN RAVEL (62139)
`aravel@mcmanislaw.com
`McMANIS FAULKNER
`a Professional Corporation
`50 West San Fernando Street, 10th Floor
`San Jose, California 95113
`Telephone:
`(408) 279-8700
`Facsimile:
`(408) 279-3244
`
`
`GLEN E. SUMMERS (176402)
`glen.summers@bartlitbeck.com
`KARMA M. GIULIANELLI (184175)
`karma.giulanelli@bartlitbeck.com
`ALISON G. WHEELER (180748)
`alison.wheeler@bartlitbeck.com
`BARTLIT BECK LLP
`1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1200
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`Telephone:
`(303) 592-3100
`Facsimile:
`(303) 592-3140
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
`Joseph Taylor, Edward Mlakar, Mick
`Cleary, and Eugene Alvis
`
`
`
` GEORGE A. ZELCS (pro hac vice
`application forthcoming)
`gzelcs@koreintillery.com
`ROBERT E. LITAN (pro hac vice
`application forthcoming)
`rlitan@koreintillery.com
`RYAN Z. CORTAZAR (pro hac vice
`application forthcoming)
`rcortazar@koreintillery.com
`KOREIN TILLERY LLC
`205 North Michigan Avenue
`Suite 1950
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`Telephone: (312) 641-9750
`Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
`
`MICHAEL E. KLENOV (277028)
`mklenov@koreintillery.com
`CAROL O’KEEFE (pro hac vice
`application forthcoming)
`cokeefe@koreintillery.com
`KOREIN TILLERY LLC
`505 North Seventh Street
`Suite 3600
`St. Louis, Missouri 63101-1625
`Telephone: (314) 241-4844
`Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
` Case No.:
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`JOSEPH TAYLOR, EDWARD MLAKAR,
`MICK CLEARY, and EUGENE ALVIS,
`individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) has a dirty little secret. It designed the Android
`1.
`operating system to collect vast amounts of information about users, which Google uses to generate
`billions in profit annually by selling targeted digital advertisements. There are privacy implications
`for an operating system specifically designed to surveil mobile device users in order to refine
`Google’s targeted advertising business. But in the course of mobile surveillance, there is also an
`unlawful taking of Android users’ property—namely, their cellular data. Google effectively forces
`these users to subsidize its surveillance by secretly programming Android devices to constantly
`transmit user information to Google in real time, thus appropriating the valuable cellular data users
`have purchased. Google does this, in large measure, for its own financial benefit, and without
`informing users or seeking their consent.
`This case involves the application of long-standing common law principles to seek
`2.
`redress for Google’s secret appropriation of Android users’ cellular data allowances. Pursuing
`claims for conversion and quantum meruit, Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of
`consumers (excluding California residents) who own Android mobile devices that secretly use
`their costly cellular data plans to enable Google’s surveillance activities.
`Much of this information-gathering by Google takes place without any action at all
`3.
`by Android device owners. While Plaintiffs’ Android devices are in their purses and pockets, and
`even while sitting seemingly idle on Plaintiffs’ nightstands as they sleep, Google’s Android
`operating system secretly appropriates cellular data paid for by Plaintiffs to perform “passive”
`information transfers which are not initiated by any action of the user and are performed without
`their knowledge. The transmission of this data to and from Google is not time-sensitive and could
`be delayed until Plaintiffs are in Wi-Fi range to avoid consuming Plaintiffs’ cellular data
`allowances. However, Google deliberately designed and coded its Android operating system and
`Google applications to indiscriminately take advantage of Plaintiffs’ data allowances and passively
`transfer information at all hours of the day—even after Plaintiffs move Google apps to the
`background, close the programs completely, or disable location-sharing.
`
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Plaintiffs had no say in Google’s continual misappropriation of their cellular data
`4.
`allowances and remain largely powerless to stop it. Google designed its Android operating system
`and apps to prevent users from changing the settings to disable these transfers completely or to
`restrict them to Wi-Fi networks. Because of Google’s deliberate design decisions, these passive
`information transfers using cellular data allowances purchased by Plaintiffs are mandatory and
`unavoidable burdens shouldered by Android device users for Google’s financial benefit.
`Plaintiffs at no time consented to these transfers, and were given no warning or
`5.
`option to disable them. Google has crafted its various terms of service and policies in ways that
`purport to create binding contracts with the users of its technologies. But Plaintiffs and other
`consumers purchased their Android devices with little choice but to accept Google’s terms and
`policies, which are contracts of adhesion. Even if Google’s policies and terms of service are valid
`contracts, they do not alert users that Android devices will needlessly consume their cellular data
`allowances. While Google informs the users of certain transfers of personal information when they
`are actively engaged with their devices, its extensive “privacy” policies are silent on mandatory,
`passive information transfers and the means by which they occur.
`These information transfers are not mere annoyances—they interfere with
`6.
`Plaintiffs’ property interests, depriving them of data for which they, not Google, paid. Each month,
`mobile device users pay their mobile carriers for cellular data allowances that enable them to
`transmit and receive information on the carriers’ cellular data networks. Whether Plaintiffs pay for
`a specific number of gigabytes or unlimited access subject to speed restrictions above a certain
`data usage threshold, the contracts between Plaintiffs and their mobile carriers create for Plaintiffs
`concrete property interests in their purchased data allowances. When it initiates passive transfers
`of information utilizing Plaintiffs’ cellular allowances, Google wrongfully interferes with
`Plaintiffs’ property and commits the longstanding tort of conversion.
`In addition to misappropriating Plaintiffs’ property, the passive transfers confer a
`7.
`valuable benefit to Google at Plaintiffs’ expense. Google sends and receives information without
`bearing the cost of transferring that information between consumers and Google. Indeed, the
`
`3
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`information transmitted through this practice supports the company’s product development and
`lucrative targeted advertising business. In the absence of contractual provisions disclosing and
`permitting Google’s appropriation of Plaintiffs’ property, Google must compensate Plaintiffs for
`the fair market value of the data allowances Google has misappropriated, as well as the value of
`the personal information which Google has thereby acquired.
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff Joseph Taylor, who is a resident and domiciliary of Illinois, bought an
`8.
`Android mobile device that he uses with a monthly unlimited cellular data plan purchased from
`carrier Metro by T-Mobile. Plaintiff Taylor was injured in fact and has been deprived of his
`property as a result of Google’s unlawful conversion of his cellular data.
`Plaintiff Edward Mlakar, who is a resident and domiciliary of Illinois, bought an
`9.
`Android mobile device that he uses with a monthly unlimited cellular data plan purchased from
`carrier Sprint Solutions, Inc. Plaintiff Mlakar was injured in fact and has been deprived of his
`property as a result of Google’s unlawful conversion of his cellular data.
`Plaintiff Mick Cleary, who is a resident and domiciliary of Wisconsin, bought an
`10.
`Android mobile device that he uses with a monthly unlimited cellular data plan purchased from
`carrier Verizon. Plaintiff Cleary was injured in fact and has been deprived of his property as a
`result of Google’s unlawful conversion of his cellular data.
`Plaintiff Eugene Alvis, who is a resident and domiciliary of Iowa, bought Android
`11.
`mobile devices that he has used with a monthly limited cellular data plan purchased from carrier
`Verizon and a monthly unlimited cellular data plan from U.S. Cellular. Plaintiff Alvis was injured
`in fact and has been deprived of his property as a result of Google’s unlawful conversion of his
`cellular data.
`Defendant Google LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal
`12.
`place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043. Google
`created the Android operating system and continues to control all aspects of Android’s
`programming and operation.
`
`
`
`
`4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because (1)
`13.
`this action is a “class action,” which contains class allegations and expressly seeks certification of
`a proposed class of individuals; (2) the Class defined below consists of more than one hundred
`proposed class members; (3) the citizenship of at least one class member is different from Google’s
`citizenship;1 and (4) the aggregate amount in controversy of the claims of Plaintiffs and the
`putative Class exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Google because it maintains its
`14.
`headquarters in California and in this District, and the illegal conduct alleged herein was conceived
`and implemented in whole or in part within California and this District.
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c).
`15.
`16.
`Google’s terms of service provide that all claims arising out of or relating to
`Google’s products and services will be litigated in federal or state courts in Santa Clara County,
`California, USA, and that Google consents to personal jurisdiction in those courts.
`
`
`I.
`GOOGLE’S ANDROID SYSTEM IS UBIQUITOUS
`Google owns and programs the most popular mobile platform in the world, the
`17.
`Android operating system. Android works on a variety of mobile devices, including smartphones
`and tablets.
`
`
`1 Because jurisdiction is based on the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), even
`though Google LLC is a limited liability company, it is a citizen of the states “where it has its
`principal place of business and…under whose laws it is organized.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(10). In
`other words, while in traditional non-class diversity cases the citizenship of a limited liability
`company would be determined by the citizenship of its members, that principle does not apply to
`this case. See, e.g., Erie Ins. Exch. V. Erie Indemn. Co., 722 F.3d 154, 161 n.7 (3d Cir. 2013)
`(explaining that the Class Action Fairness Act “evinces an intent that suits by unincorporated
`associations be treated like suits by corporations in that the citizenship of the association for
`diversity purposes is determined by the entity’s principal place of business and not by the
`citizenship of its members”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`The Android operating system includes an interface that provides the principal
`18.
`means by which users interact with their devices. The interface allows consumers to access and to
`use applications and widgets on the devices.
`
`In addition to the Android operating system, Plaintiffs’ devices come with various
`19.
`Google applications and widgets pre-installed, including the Google search application, Chrome
`browser, Gmail email application, Google Maps, and YouTube.
`Android has been available on mobile devices since 2008 and has been the most
`20.
`dominant mobile operating system since 2011.2 It currently has about a 54.4 percent share of the
`U.S. smartphone market.3
`All or virtually all mobile carriers offer cellular data plans that allow Android
`21.
`devices to connect to their cellular networks in order to send and receive internet communications.
`These mobile carriers sell mobile devices directly to consumers. Among the mobile carriers that
`sell Android devices for connection to their cellular networks are Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-
`Mobile, and U.S. Cellular.
`22. Many of the most popular mobile-device manufacturers sell devices with Android
`preinstalled as the operating system and often with a suite of Google’s mobile apps preinstalled.
`These manufacturers include Samsung, Motorola, LG, Kyocera, Sonim, Huawei, ZTE, and HTC.
`
`
`II.
`
`PLAINTIFFS HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THEIR CELLULAR
`DATA PLANS
`Plaintiffs purchased mobile devices preloaded with Google’s Android operating
`23.
`system and suite of mobile apps and widgets.
`
`
`2 Charles Arthur, The History of Smartphones: Timeline, GUARDIAN (Jan. 24, 2012),
`https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jan/24/smartphones-timeline.
`3 Subscriber Share Held by Smartphone Operating Systems in the United States: 2012 to 2018,
`STATISTA, https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held-by-smartphone-
`platforms-in-the-united-states/.
`
`
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`To use their mobile devices, Plaintiffs contracted with mobile carriers. As part of
`24.
`these contracts, plaintiffs purchased cellular data plans that provided them with data allowances.
`These plans allow plaintiffs to access the carriers’ cellular data networks, thereby providing users
`with the ability to send and receive information over the internet without a Wi-Fi connection. In
`this way, cellular data plans provide the essential capability that allows a mobile device to be truly
`mobile.
`Though cellular data networks provide a critical resource for mobile devices, they
`25.
`are not necessary for the mobile device to send and receive information through the internet. When
`users do not wish to use their cellular networks or when they are unable to use them, mobile devices
`can also transfer and receive information over the internet through Wi-Fi connections. Indeed,
`many cost-conscious users maximize their time on Wi-Fi whenever possible and use their cellular
`networks only when Wi-Fi connections are unavailable in order to “save” the cellular data
`allowances available under their monthly carrier plans.
`Cellular data plans vary by carrier, but they function in essentially the same way.
`26.
`The users pay the carrier a certain price each month for cellular data allowances, which provide
`the users with the right to send and receive information on their devices through the carrier’s
`cellular network. Some cellular data plans provide users with an unlimited cellular data allowance,
`while others provide users with a fixed allowance, which grants them the right to send and receive
`a maximum amount of data (e.g., 10 gigabytes) each month. When users have a fixed cellular data
`allowance and exceed it, they are typically charged an overage fee. When users have a so-called
`“unlimited” plan, they are still typically subject to quotas on their usage and will have their cellular
`connection speeds throttled if they exceed such quotas. When throttled to reduced speeds, a
`number of functionalities can be lost entirely (such as video streaming), and the overall
`performance of the device can be significantly impaired.
`The purchase of data plans from mobile carriers creates a property interest for
`27.
`Plaintiffs in their cellular data allowances. Each quantum of the data allowance has a fair market
`value determined by market forces. By contracting for the purchase of their cellular data
`
`7
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`allowances, Plaintiffs obtain access to send and receive information on the carriers’ networks in
`accordance with the terms of the contract. This access includes the right to exclude other persons
`and entities from using Plaintiffs’ cellular data allowances. Plaintiffs have the right to determine
`precisely how to use their data allowances and to grant others access to those allowances through
`their mobile device activity.
`For example, Android users may explicitly grant others access to their cellular data
`28.
`allowances by creating a mobile “hotspot,” in which the mobile device shares its cellular network
`connection with other nearby devices so that those devices can access the internet once they are
`given the hotspot’s password. Similarly, “tethering” (either through a USB cable or a Bluetooth
`connection) allows users to connect their mobile device with a computer to share the device’s
`cellular network connection and grant the computer access to their cellular data allowances. Users
`can also sell unused data allowances. See, e.g., https://www.simplify.network/ (mobile app
`enabling Android users to sell their excess data allowances via hotspot).
`
`
`III. MOBILE DEVICE USERS ONLY CONSENT TO GOOGLE’S USE OF
`THEIR CELLULAR DATA ALLOWANCES WHEN THEY ACTIVELY
`USE GOOGLE’S PRODUCTS
`Under certain circumstances, mobile device users consent to the use of their cellular
`29.
`data allowances. For example, when users actively engage with applications that require internet
`access while connected only by their cellular plan, they instruct the applications to use some of
`their cellular data allowance, thus authorizing such use. For example, when a user is in an area
`without Wi-Fi, opens a browser, and types in a web address, the user consents to use her cellular
`data allowance to send information to the website’s server and to allow the website to send
`information over the mobile carrier’s cellular network to the device. Similarly, when that user
`opens a video app and requests to view a video, she consents to allow the app to send a video to
`her device over her mobile carrier’s cellular network and for that usage to count toward her
`allowance.
`
`
`
`
`8
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`These active transfers of information that are initiated by the user engaging an
`30.
`application are not at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs do not contest Google’s right to use Plaintiffs’
`cellular data allowances pursuant to their consent when Plaintiffs are actively using Google’s
`various products on their mobile devices.
`Plaintiffs instead challenge Google’s misappropriation of their cellular data
`31.
`allowances, without Plaintiffs’ consent, based on “passive transfers,” meaning information
`transfers that occur in the background or which do not result from Plaintiffs’ direct engagement
`with Google products on their devices. These passive transfers, described in more detail below,
`occur in a variety of ways – including when Google applications are open (though not in active
`use) and operating in the background, and even when a user has closed out all Google applications
`on her device and the device is stationary and seemingly dormant. In none of the Google policies
`discussed below does Google notify users that its operating system, applications, and widgets
`cause users’ mobile devices to indiscriminately consume Plaintiffs’ cellular data allowances, even
`when users are not using an app or widget on their devices.
`
`
`IV. GOOGLE’S MISAPPROPRIATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ CELLULAR DATA
`ALLOWANCES
`Google designed and implemented its Android operating system and apps to extract
`32.
`and transmit large volumes of information between Plaintiffs’ cellular devices and Google using
`Plaintiffs’ cellular data allowances. Google’s misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ cellular data
`allowances through passive transfers occurs in the background, does not result from Plaintiffs’
`direct engagement with Google’s apps and properties on their devices, and happens without
`Plaintiffs’ consent.
`These passive transfers occur in a variety of ways. First, such transfers occur when
`33.
`mobile devices are in a completely idle state, meaning they are stationary, untouched, and with all
`apps closed. To confirm this, an analysis commissioned by Plaintiffs’ counsel tested a new
`Samsung Galaxy S7 mobile device with the standard default settings accepted and standard pre-
`
`9
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`loaded set of apps, which was connected to a brand-new Google account and was not connected
`to Wi-Fi. The analysis found that when the device was left in an idle state, the device sent and
`received 8.88 MB/day of data, with 94% of those communications occurring between Google and
`the device. In all, the device transferred information to and from Google approximately 389 times
`in 24 hours, for an average of more than 16 times per hour. The frequency of passive information
`transfers in this experiment was striking given the source: a stationary and untouched Android
`device, with all apps closed.
`34. Many of those communications were comprised of LOG files, which are
`automatically-produced files that contain a record of certain background information such as the
`networks that are available, apps that are open, and metrics about the operating system. LOG files
`are typically not time-sensitive, and transmission of them could easily be delayed until Wi-Fi is
`available. Google could also program Android to allow users to enable passive transfers only when
`they are on Wi-Fi connections, but it has chosen not to do so. Instead, Google has chosen to simply
`take advantage of Plaintiffs’ cellular data allowances so that it can get information from Plaintiffs
`at all hours of the day, no matter where they are or what they are doing.
`Second, a higher volume of passive transfers occurs when mobile devices are
`35.
`stationary and untouched, but with one or more apps open and unused. Vanderbilt University
`Professor Douglas C. Schmidt performed a study of Google’s data collection efforts in 2018. (See
`Ex. 1, Douglas C. Schmidt, Google Data Collection (Aug. 15, 2018). He found that both Android
`and Chrome transmit information to Google “even in the absence of any user interaction.” (Id. at
`p. 3 (emphasis in original).) Professor Schmidt conducted an experiment with an Android device
`that was outwardly dormant and stationary but with Chrome open and in the background, and he
`found passive transfers4 to Google occurred approximately 900 times in 24 hours (id. at 14), for
`an average of 38 times per hour.
`
`
`4 Professor Schmidt consistently defined “passive” information transfers as “information
`exchanged in the background without any obvious notification to the user,” in contrast to
`“active” transfers, which he defined as “information directly exchanged between the user and a
`
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`In comparison, a stationary and untouched iPhone device with the Safari browser
`36.
`open in the background communicated virtually no information to Google, and its information
`transfers to Apple amounted to only about 1/10th of the information transferred to Google from the
`Android device. (Id. at pp. 3, 14.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1 at p. 14, Figure 6, Traffic data sent from idle Android and iPhone mobiles.)
`
`The Android device passively transferred 4.4 MB of data each day, or around
`37.
`130MB each month, to Google servers, while the iPhone device transferred around 1/6th that
`volume of data to Google servers. (Id. at 14.)
`The contrast between the number of requests made to the two devices, as well as
`38.
`the volume of data transferred from the devices, confirms that Google’s products play critical roles
`in passive information transfers to Google—and that the vast majority or all of these transfers are
`unnecessary.
`
`
`Google product.” (Id. at 7.)
`
`
`
`
`11
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`Third, even more passive transfers occur once users begin moving around with their
`39.
`Android devices, or interacting with them by visiting web pages, or using apps, despite also
`eschewing the use of any preloaded Google apps such as Google Search, YouTube, Gmail, or
`Google Maps. (Id. at pp. 3, 23.) This increased activity was driven by Google’s publishing and
`advertising products including Google Analytics, DoubleClick (now Google Ad Manager), and
`AdWords (now Google Ads). (Id. at 3, 15) Passive information transfers represented 46% of
`requests to Google servers from the device in the Schmidt experiment. (Id. at pp. 3–4.)
`An iPhone device (again, without the Android operating system or Google’s
`40.
`applications) in comparable active use communicated with Apple far less frequently than Android
`devices communicated with Google’s servers. (Id. at 24.) (The two devices did have a comparable
`number of contacts with Google’s advertising domains, as was expected in light of the similar
`usage on both devices of third party websites and apps which provide information to Google. (Id.))
`The iPhone device also transferred a small fraction of information to Apple’s servers, compared
`to the information transferred to Google from the Android device, as shown below: (Id.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`(Ex. 1 at p. 24, Figure 12, Information requests from mobile devices during a day of typical use.)
`41. With active use, the Android device passively transferred to Google servers 11.6
`MB of data each day, or around 350MB each month, while the iPhone device transferred around
`half that amount to Google servers. (Id. at 24.)
`Google’s publishing and advertising products drive passive data transfers from
`42.
`Android devices to Google in a variety of ways. For example, Android devices transmit
`“tokens” that identify devices and users (and provide other information) with each connection to
`Google’s servers. Google uses this information to determine which users it communicates with
`on which specific devices and to serve targeted ads. (Id. at 16–23.) These tokens are frequently
`sent alongside requests to send ads to the device.
`Google’s publishing and advertising products also drive passive data transfers from
`43.
`Google to Android devices. For example, Google tracks and predicts user behavior to pre-load
`targeted ads containing text, audio, games or other interactives, and even video onto Android
`devices. Users often never view these pre-loaded ads, even though their cellular data was already
`consumed to download the ads from Google. And because these pre-loads can count as ad
`impressions, Google is paid for transmitting the ads.
`Google instigates these transfers of information by designing and implementing its
`44.
`Android operating system and apps to mandate that transfer, regardless of whether a user has
`access to a Wi-Fi connection or instead has only her cellular data allowance to transmit information
`to and from her device.
`
`V. MOBILE DEVICE USERS DO NOT CONSENT TO GOOGLE’S USE OF
`THEIR CELLULAR DATA ALLOWANCES WHEN THEY ARE NOT
`USING GOOGLE’S PRODUCTS
`
`Users of Android must accept standardized form contracts to use the company’s
`45.
`various policies (“Google Agreements”). But none of those agreements discloses that Google
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`appropriates Plaintiffs’ cellular data allowances to transmit information when Plaintiffs are not
`actively using Google’s products. Instead, they notify Plaintiffs that they may incur charges to
`third parties (the wireless carriers) when they use Google’s products.
`The Google Agreements include four general policies relevant to this suit: the
`46.
`Terms of Service; the Privacy Policy; the Managed Google Play Agreement; and the Google Play
`Terms of Service.5 Google’s master policy is its Terms of Service. The Terms of Service
`themselves incorporate by reference the company’s Privacy Policy. In addition, according to the
`Managed Google Play Agreement, use of the Android operating system is governed by the Google
`Play Terms of Service. Nothing in these policies suggests that Google uses Plaintiffs’ data
`allowances to transmit information when Plaintiffs are not actively engaged with Google’s
`products.
`Specifically, Google’s Privacy Policy states, “We collect information about the
`47.
`apps, browsers, and devices you use to access Google services… We collect this information when
`a Google service on your device contacts our servers—for example, when you install an app from
`the Play Store or when a service checks for automatic updates. If you’re using an Android device
`with Google apps, your device periodically contacts Google servers to provide information about
`your device and connection to our services.”6
`The Google Play Terms of Service is the only policy that even mentions cellular
`48.
`data usage. It applies to the company’s Google Play online store, where users can download
`software applications for their mobile devices. The policy has a disclaimer targeted specifically at
`Google Play’s usage of cellular data allowances. The disclaimer, however, applies only to active
`usage in connection with the use of Google Play and apps available through Google Play. The Play
`terms provide: “You are responsible for any access or data fees incurred from third parties (such
`
`
`5 These policies are posted online at: https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en-US (Terms of
`Service); https://policies.google.com/privacy (Google Privacy Policy);
`https://www.android.com/enterprise/terms/ (Managed Google Play Agreement);
`https://play.google.com/about/play-terms/index.html (Google Play Terms of Service).
`6 Google Privacy Policy, https://policies.google.com/privacy.
`
`14
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Document 1 Filed 11/12/20 Page 15 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`as your Internet provider or mobile carrier) in connection with your use and viewing of Content
`and Google Play”7 (emphasis added). The disclaimer is silent on Google’s misappropriation of
`cellular data allowances when users are not