throbber
Case 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Document 60 Filed 12/13/21 Page 1 of 33
`
` GEORGE A. ZELCS
`MARC A. WALLENSTEIN
`ROBERT E. LITAN
`RYAN Z. CORTAZAR
`KOREIN TILLERY LLC
`205 North Michigan Avenue
`Suite 1950
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`Telephone: (312) 641-9750
`Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
`
`MICHAEL E. KLENOV (277028)
`CAROL O’KEEFE
`KOREIN TILLERY LLC
`505 North Seventh Street
`Suite 3600
`St. Louis, Missouri 63101-1625
`Telephone: (314) 241-4844
`Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
`
`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, Eugene Alvis, and Jennifer Nelson
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`JOSEPH TAYLOR, EDWARD MLAKAR,
`MICK CLEARY, EUGENE ALVIS, and
`JENNIFER NELSON individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
` Case No.: 5:20-CV-07956-VKD
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 5:20-CV-07956-VKD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 60 Filed 12/13/21 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) designed the Android operating system to
`collect vast amounts of information about its users, which Google uses to generate billions of
`dollars in profit annually by selling targeted digital advertisements and improving products like
`Google Maps. 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 there is
`also an unlawful free-riding problem because Google collects this information by consuming the
`cellular data that its Android users purchase from their cellular providers every month. 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.
`2.
`This case involves the application of long-standing common law principles to seek
`redress for Google’s secret appropriation of Android users’ cellular data. Pursuing separate claims
`under both quantum meruit and conversion, Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of
`consumers (excluding California residents) who own Android mobile devices that secretly use
`their costly cellular data to enable Google’s surveillance activities.
`3.
`Consumers pay mobile carriers for cellular data, and they consume that data
`through their mobile devices. Cellular data is property subject to conversion. But even if cellular
`data were a service rather than property, Google’s misappropriation of that service gives rise to a
`quantum meruit claim—a claim that does not depend on cellular data being property.
`4.
`Cellular data is property subject to conversion because, just like electricity or water,
`cellular data is capable of exclusive possession. Just like electricity or water passing through a
`meter attached to a home, every singly byte of cellular data transmitted by a wireless device is
`metered by the carrier. Just like the use of electricity or water, the amount of data transmitted by a
`wireless device has ramifications for the consumer, who can be charged for the additional use or
`suffer restrictions on further use. And just as electricity and water are provided by utilities, it
`
`2
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 5:20-CV-07956-VKD
`
`
`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 60 Filed 12/13/21 Page 3 of 33
`
`
`
`makes no difference that cellular data is transmitted by a wireless carrier. Just like electricity
`delivered through a wire into a home is property, and just as the water passing through a pipe into
`a home is property, so too is the cellular data transported over a wireless carrier’s network to and
`from a user’s cellular device.
`5.
`Even if cellular data is not property subject to conversion, and is instead a
`contractual right of access to a service, it is still a valuable right that Google has misappropriated,
`and the misappropriation of a service is precisely the sort of wrong that quantum meruit is meant
`to redress. The quantum meruit claim pleaded in this Amended Complaint is not a common
`count derivative of the conversion claim. It is a separate cause of action, with a separate theory
`of recovery that the consumer class has a right to pursue regardless of whether cellular data is or
`is not property. The quantum meruit claim does not rise and fall with the conversion claim—quite
`the opposite. Either cellular data is property subject to conversion, or it is a contractual right of
`access to a service subject to quantum meruit. It may even be both—but it must at least be one or
`the other.
`6.
`Much of the information-gathering by Google takes place without any action at all
`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 on a Wi-Fi network, to avoid consuming Plaintiffs’ cellular data.
`However, Google deliberately designed and coded its Android operating system and Google
`applications to indiscriminately consume Plaintiffs’ cellular data 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.
`7.
`Plaintiffs had no say in Google’s continual misappropriation of their cellular data
`and remain largely powerless to stop it. Google designed its Android operating system and apps
`
`3
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 5:20-CV-07956-VKD
`
`
`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 60 Filed 12/13/21 Page 4 of 33
`
`
`
`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 purchased by Plaintiffs are mandatory and unavoidable burdens
`shouldered by Android device users for Google’s financial benefit.
`8.
`Plaintiffs at no time consented to these transfers, and were given no warning or
`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.
`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.
`9.
`These information transfers are not mere annoyances—they interfere with
`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 that enable them to transmit and
`receive information on the carriers’ cellular data networks. Whether Plaintiffs pay for a specific
`number of gigabytes, pay a fixed price per GB, or pay for 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 cellular data. When it
`initiates passive transfers of information utilizing Plaintiffs’ cellular allowances, Google
`wrongfully interferes with Plaintiffs’ exclusive possession of this property and commits the
`longstanding tort of conversion.
`10.
`If cellular data is viewed as a contractual right of access to a service instead of
`property, then Google has unjustly enriched itself by misappropriating Plaintiffs’ right to transmit
`cellular data over their carriers’ networks for its own purposes, without the knowledge or consent
`of the users whose right of access Google is coopting. If that misappropriation does not state a
`
`4
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 5:20-CV-07956-VKD
`
`
`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 60 Filed 12/13/21 Page 5 of 33
`
`
`
`claim for conversion, it must state a claim for quantum meruit. That is because the passive
`transfers of cellular data confer a 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 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 to utilize Plaintiffs’ cellular data, Google
`must compensate Plaintiffs for that use.
`11.
`This case is not about privacy. In this Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs do not
`challenge Google’s underlying practice of harvesting personal information about users from their
`interactions with mobile devices or apps. Rather, Plaintiffs challenge Google’s practice of
`effectively making mobile device users pay for the transfer of that information from their mobile
`devices to Google. As used by the carriers, and as used in this Amended Complaint, the term
`“cellular data” does not describe the underlying personal information that Google secretly causes
`Android mobile devices to transmit to it; rather, “cellular data” describes the transmission of such
`information over cellular networks charged against consumers’ cellular data plans. To avoid
`confusion, this Amended Complaint typically refers to cellular data as “data” and the underlying
`information transferred via the cellular network as “information.”
`PARTIES
`12.
`Plaintiff Joseph Taylor, who is a resident and domiciliary of Illinois, bought an
`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.
`13.
`Plaintiff Edward Mlakar, who is a resident and domiciliary of Illinois, bought an
`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.
`
`
`5
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 5:20-CV-07956-VKD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 60 Filed 12/13/21 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`14.
`Plaintiff Mick Cleary, who is a resident and domiciliary of Wisconsin, bought an
`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.
`15.
`Plaintiff Eugene Alvis, who is a resident and domiciliary of Iowa, bought Android
`mobile devices that he has used with a monthly limited cellular data plan purchased from carrier
`Verizon from 2013 through approximately November 2019 and a monthly unlimited cellular data
`plan from U.S. Cellular from approximately November 2019 through the present. Plaintiff Alvis
`changed his Verizon monthly data limit from time to time, and at various times it was 4GB, 6GB,
`8GB, 12GB, or 25GB, depending on the plan that he chose. Plaintiff Alvis was also briefly on an
`unlimited Verizon data plan from July to October 2019. 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.
`16.
`Plaintiff Jennifer Nelson, who is a resident and domiciliary of Wisconsin, bought
`an Android mobile device that she uses with a monthly pay-per-GB data plan purchased from
`carrier Spectrum Mobile. She pays a fixed price for up to 1GB of data per month, and whenever
`she exceeds 1GB of data usage (which she does from time to time), she pays an additional charge
`for each additional 1GB of data. Plaintiff Nelson was injured in fact and has been deprived of her
`property as a result of Google’s unlawful conversion of her cellular data.
`17.
`Defendant Google LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal
`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.
`
`JURISDICTION
`18.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because (1)
`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
`
`6
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 5:20-CV-07956-VKD
`
`
`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 60 Filed 12/13/21 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`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.
`19.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Google because it maintains its
`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.
`20.
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c).
`21.
`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
`22.
`Google owns and programs the most popular mobile platform in the world: the
`Android operating system. Android works on a variety of mobile devices, including smartphones
`and tablets.
`23.
`The Android operating system includes an interface that provides the principal
`means by which users interact with their devices. The interface allows consumers to access and to
`use applications and widgets on the devices.
`24.
`In addition to the Android operating system, Plaintiffs’ devices come with various
`Google applications and widgets pre-installed, including the Google search application, Chrome
`browser, Gmail email application, Google Maps, and YouTube.
`
`
`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”).
`
`
`
`7
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 5:20-CV-07956-VKD
`
`
`
`
`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 60 Filed 12/13/21 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`25.
`Android has been available on mobile devices since 2008 and has been the most
`dominant mobile operating system since 2011.2 It currently has about a 54.4 percent share of the
`U.S. smartphone market.3
`26.
`All or virtually all mobile carriers sell cellular data to customers via cellular data
`plans that allow Android 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.
`27. 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
`
`28.
`Plaintiffs purchased mobile devices preloaded with Google’s Android operating
`system and suite of mobile apps and widgets.
`29.
`To use their mobile devices, Plaintiffs contracted with mobile carriers. As part of
`these contracts, Plaintiffs purchase cellular data from their mobile carriers through cellular data
`plans that 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.
`30.
`Though cellular data networks provide a critical resource for mobile devices, they
`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,
`
`
`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/.
`
`
`
`8
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 5:20-CV-07956-VKD
`
`
`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 60 Filed 12/13/21 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`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
`available under their monthly carrier plans.
`31.
`Cellular data plans vary by carrier, but they function in essentially the same way.
`The users pay the carrier a certain price each month, and in exchange, they purchase cellular data,
`which they can use to send and receive information on their devices through the carrier’s cellular
`network. Some users purchase limited data plans, meaning a fixed amount of cellular data for a
`fixed price, e.g., 8GB per month. Users with limited data plans are typically charged an overage
`fee if they use more data than they have purchased in a given month, e.g., if they exceed the 8GB
`limit. Other users buy cellular data incrementally, on a pay-per-GB basis, meaning that they pay
`a fixed amount for 1GB of data, and if they use more than 1GB of data that month, they pay another
`fixed amount for a second GB of data. Users with such “pay-per-GB” plans pay a fixed charge
`(though not labeled an “overage”) for each additional GB of data that they use each month. Still
`other users have unlimited plans, essentially requirements contracts, which appear to offer
`unlimited data usage, but in reality are still nearly always subject to quotas on their usage and will
`have their cellular connection speeds throttled if they exceed such quotas. For example, a typical
`“unlimited” data plan actually has a data cap of, e.g., 20GB per month. If the user exceeds that
`data cap, the user is “throttled,” which means the speed at which he or she can access the cellular
`network is greatly reduced. When throttled to reduced speeds, a number of functionalities are
`typically lost entirely (such as video streaming), and the overall performance of the device is
`significantly impaired. Users who are throttled typically notice a network slowdown or an inability
`to use their device, but often do not realize that they have been throttled, and instead attribute the
`slowdown or lack of access to general network issues.
`32.
`Some users do not have data plans at all—instead, they purchase prepaid SIM cards
`(or prepaid cellular phones) that have a particular allocation of data associated with the SIM card
`(or phone) at the time of purchase, e.g., 25GB. When the user purchases that SIM card (or
`phone),what they are buying is the advertised amount cellular data, e.g. 25GB. Once that data is
`
`9
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 5:20-CV-07956-VKD
`
`
`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 60 Filed 12/13/21 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`used up, it is gone. Sometimes the user has the opportunity to purchase additional data at that
`point, but the original cellular data that the user purchased has been used up.
`33.
`The purchase of data plans from mobile carriers creates a property interest for
`Plaintiffs in their cellular data. Each megabyte or gigabyte of the cellular data has a fair market
`value, determined by market forces. By contracting for the purchase of their cellular data, Plaintiffs
`obtain access to send and receive information on the carriers’ networks in the amounts provided
`by the terms of the contract. This access includes the right to exclude other persons and entities
`from using Plaintiffs’ cellular data. Plaintiffs have the right to determine precisely how to use their
`cellular data and to grant others access to those allowances through their mobile device activity.
`34.
`For example, Android users may explicitly grant others access to their cellular data
`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, Wi-Fi sharing 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. Users
`can also sell unused cellular data. See, e.g., https://www.simplify.network/ (mobile app enabling
`Android users to sell their excess data via hotspot).
`III. MOBILE DEVICE USERS ONLY CONSENT TO GOOGLE’S USE OF
`THEIR CELLULAR DATA WHEN THEY ACTIVELY USE GOOGLE’S
`PRODUCTS
`35.
`Under certain circumstances, mobile device users consent to the use of their cellular
`data. For example, when users actively engage with applications that require internet access while
`connected only to their cellular network, they instruct the applications to use some of their cellular
`data, 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 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
`
`
`10
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 5:20-CV-07956-VKD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 60 Filed 12/13/21 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`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.
`36.
`These active transfers of information that are initiated by the user engaging an
`application are not at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs do not contest Google’s right to use Plaintiffs’
`cellular data pursuant to their consent when Plaintiffs are actively using Google’s various products
`on their mobile devices.
`37.
`Plaintiffs instead challenge Google’s misappropriation of their cellular data,
`without Plaintiffs’ consent, based on “passive transfers,” meaning information transfers that occur
`in the background or that 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, even when users are not using an app
`or widget on their devices.
`IV. GOOGLE’S MISAPPROPRIATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ CELLULAR DATA
`38.
`Google designed and implemented its Android operating system and apps to extract
`and transmit large volumes of information between Plaintiffs’ cellular devices and Google using
`Plaintiffs’ cellular data. Google’s misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ cellular data 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.
`39.
`These passive transfers occur in a variety of ways. First, such transfers occur when
`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-
`loaded set of apps, which was connected to a brand-new Google account and was not connected
`
`11
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 5:20-CV-07956-VKD
`
`
`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 60 Filed 12/13/21 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`to Wi-Fi. The analysis found that when the device was left in an idle state, the device sent and
`received 8.88 MB per 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.
`40. 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 so that it can get information from Plaintiffs at all hours
`of the day, no matter where they are or what they are doing.
`41.
`Second, a higher volume of passive transfers occurs when mobile devices are
`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 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
`Google product.” (Id. at 7.)
`
`
`
`12
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 5:20-CV-07956-VKD
`
`
`
`
`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 60 Filed 12/13/21 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`42.
`In comparison, a stationary and untouched iPhone device with the Safari browser
`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 3, 14.
`
`
`(Ex. 1 at p. 14, Figure 6, Traffic data sent from idle Android and iPhone mobiles.)
`
`43.
`The Android device passively transferred 4.4 MB of data each day, or around
`130MB each month, to Google servers, while the iPhone device transferred around 1/6th that
`volume of data to Google servers. Id. at 14.
`44.
`The contrast between the number of requests made to the two devices, as well as
`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.
`45.
`Third, even more passive transfers occur once users begin moving around with their
`Android devices, or interacting with them by visiting web pages, or using apps, despite also
`
`
`13
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 5:20-CV-07956-VKD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 60 Filed 12/13/21 Page 14 of 33
`
`
`
`eschewing the use of any preloaded Google apps such as Google Search, YouTube, Gmail, or
`Google Maps. Id. at 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 3–4.
`46.
`An iPhone device (again, without the Android operating system or Google’s
`applications) in comparable active use communicated with Apple far less frequently than Android

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket