throbber
Case 5:21-cv-03360 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 1 of 65
`
`
`
`
`
`NANCI E. NISHIMURA (SBN 152621)
`nnishimura@cpmlegal.com
`BRIAN DANITZ (SBN 247403)
`bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
`KARIN B. SWOPE (Pro Hac Vice pending)
`kswope@cpmlegal.com
`NOORJAHAN RAHMAN (SBN 330572)
`nrahman@cpmlegal.com
`BETHANY M. HILL (SBN 326358)
`bhill@cpmlegal.com
`COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
`840 Malcolm Road
`Burlingame, California 94010
`Telephone:
`(650) 697-6000
`Facsimile:
`(650) 697-0577
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`MAISIE C. SOKOLOVE (SBN 239665)
`mcs@knoxricksen.com
`THOMAS E. FRAYSSE (SBN 104436)
`tef@knoxricksen.com
`ITAK K. MORADI (SBN 310537)
`ikm@ knoxricksen.com
`KNOX RICKSEN LLP
`2033 N. Main St., Suite 340
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone:
`(925) 433-2500
`Facsimile:
`(925) 433-2505
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`CASE NO:
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEAGHAN DELAHUNTY,
`MEGHAN CORNELIUS, and
`JOHN KEVRANIAN, on behalf of
`themselves and all others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE, LLC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`vs.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03360 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 2 of 65
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`A. The Falsehood Presented by Google re Privacy ............................................................. 1
`
`B. The Process of Google’s Privacy Violations ................................................................... 1
`
`C. The Scale of Google’s Privacy Violations ....................................................................... 3
`
`D. Google’s Continuing False Promises Regarding Privacy .............................................. 3
`
`E. The Violations of both California and Federal Law ...................................................... 5
`
`F. Congressional Inquiry has not Stopped the Fraud ........................................................ 6
`
`II. JURISDICTION .................................................................................................................... 7
`
`III. PARTIES ................................................................................................................................ 8
`
`IV. FACTS .................................................................................................................................. 10
`
`G. Google Falsely Represents That It Protects Its Customers’ Privacy ......................... 10
`
`H. Google’s History of Privacy Violations & Its Agreement with the Federal Trade
`Commission ..................................................................................................................... 12
`
`I. Google Promises That It Doesn’t Sell Customers’ Personal Information ................. 15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Privacy Policy Provided Personal Information Was Not Shared or Sold ........... 16
`
`Terms of Service from May 2018 to the Present ........................................................ 18
`
`J. Google Real-Time Bidding is Hidden to Google Customers ....................................... 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`How Google Customers’ Personal Information is Shared on the RTB Auction ........ 21
`
`Google’s Disclosures Are Personally Identifiable to RTB Participants ..................... 22
`
`Companies Buy and Google Sells Google Customers’ Personal Information ........... 23
`
`Statute of Limitations is Tolled .................................................................................. 25
`
`K. Google has been wrongly enriched by its conduct ....................................................... 25
`
`L. Plaintiffs’ personal information is property under California law ............................ 26
`
`M. The California Financial Privacy Act Imposes Information Fiduciary Obligations
`Upon Google .................................................................................................................... 27
`
`V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ................................................................................... 29
`
`VI. CAUSES OF ACTION ........................................................................................................ 31
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`CALIFORNIA INVASION OF PRIVACY ............................................................................. 31
`
`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
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03360 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 3 of 65
`
`
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT .................................................................................... 32
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ......................................................................................... 33
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`UNJUST ENRICHMENT ........................................................................................................ 34
`
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR
`COMPETITION LAW (“UCL”)
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. .................................................................................. 35
`
`SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`INTRUSON UPON SECLUSION ........................................................................................... 36
`
`SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`PUBLICATION OF PRIVATE INFORMATION .................................................................. 37
`
`EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`BREACH OF CONFIDENCE ................................................................................................. 38
`
`NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA INVASION OF PRIVACY ACT .............................. 39
`
`TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`VIOLATIONS OF THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT –
`UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE ....................................... 41
`
`ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`VIOLATION OF ECPA WIRETAP AND STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT –
`UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS ................... 44
`
`TWELTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`VIOLATION OF THE VIDEO PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT .......................................... 49
`
`THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`BREACH OF CONTRACT ..................................................................................................... 52
`
`FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`BREACH OF THE IMPLEIED COVENANT OF
`GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING ................................................................................... 53
`
`FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`STATUTORY CIVIL LARCENCY
`California Penal Code Sections 484 and 496 ........................................................................... 54
`
`VII. JURY TRIAL DEMAND .................................................................................................... 56
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`ii
`
`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 5:21-cv-03360 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 4 of 65
`
`
`
`“Few Americans realize that some auction participants are siphoning off and storing
`
`“bidstream” data to compile exhaustive dossiers about them. In turn, these dossiers
`
`are being openly sold to anyone with a credit card, including to hedge funds,
`
`political campaigns, and even to governments.”
`
`April 1, 2021 Letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai from
`U.S. Senators Wyden, Cassidy, Gillibrand, Warner, Brown, and Warren1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION 2
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`The Falsehood Presented by Google re Privacy
`
`This case is all about a persons’ privacy under laws of our state, country and
`
`common sense.
`
`2.
`
`Google repeatedly says that it values privacy and gives users control of their
`
`personal information. Google promises its hundreds of millions of users that it “will never sell
`
`any personal information to third parties” and “you get to decide how your information is
`
`used.”3 These promises are false. In fact, Google monitors its consumers’ digital footprint, then
`
`makes billions of dollars by selling their sensitive personal information. While Google lulls its
`
`users into a false sense of privacy, it continually and surreptitiously broadcasts its users’
`
`sensitive personal information to third parties through its Real-Time Bidding (“RTB”) system.
`
`B.
`
`3.
`
`The Process of Google’s Privacy Violations
`
`RTB is the process by which the digital ads we see every day on the Internet are
`
`curated. For each ad, an auction takes place milliseconds before it shows up in a users’ browser
`
`or in an mobile application. During this auction, hundreds of third parties receive sensitive
`
`
`
`1 See Exhibit 1 to this Complaint.
`2 Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The
`allegations pertaining to plaintiffs are based on personal knowledge, and the allegations
`pertaining to all other matters are based on information and belief, including investigations by
`counsel and information learned from Congressional hearings, administrative proceedings,
`academic research, Google’s website, and news reports.
`3 Pichai, Sundar (May 7, 2019), Google’s Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury Good,
`The New York Times, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/opinion/google-sundar-
`pichai-privacy.html
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-03360 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 5 of 65
`
`
`
`personal information about the potential recipient of the ad, including, but not limited to, their
`
`device identifiers and their cookies, detailed location data, IP addresses, browsing history, unique
`
`demographic and biometric information such as age and gender. All of these “bidders” receive
`
`this personal information which they can, and do, save and review, even though only one
`
`bidder—the auction winner—will use that information to deliver an advertisement to the
`
`consumer.
`
`4.
`
`Few Americans realize that Google is allowing so many companies to siphon off
`
`and store this highly personal “bidstream” data which is then sold by data brokers to hedge
`
`funds, political campaigns, and even to governments, both foreign and domestic.4 When
`
`compiled, these massive data sets operate like exhaustive dossiers on individual Americans.
`
`5.
`
`During its Real-Time Bidding auctions, Google solicits participants to bid on ad
`
`space targeted to the specific consumer (the “Consumer”). To do so, Google provides highly
`
`specific information about the Consumer to all auction participants, including data that
`
`effectively identifies the Consumer being targeted through unique identifiers, device identifiers
`
`and IP addresses, among other information. All of this individualized information is called the
`
`“Bidstream Data.”
`
`6.
`
`In less than a blink of an eye, hundreds of recipients of the Consumer’s Bidstream
`
`Data submit bids to place an ad on the Consumer’s screen. Only one bidder will win the auction.
`
`However, all participants, even those who did not even submit a bid, are able to save, store and
`
`monetize the Consumer’s personal information. As Google is well-aware, many participants do
`
`not place bids and only participate to conduct surveillance and collect ever more detailed data
`
`points about millions of Google’s Consumers. Google benefits from this surveillance, as the
`
`higher number of bidders encourages higher bids, which increases the profitability of Google
`
`RTB auctions.
`
`
`4 Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon), et al. (July 31, 2020), Letter to Hon. Joseph J. Simmons,
`Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urging FTC investigation of RTB (“Wyden
`FTC Letter”) available at
`https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/073120%20Wyden%20Cassidy%20Led%20FT
`C%20Investigation%20letter.pdf and attached as Ex 1 to this Complaint
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`2
`
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-03360 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 6 of 65
`
`
`
`C.
`
`7.
`
`The Scale of Google’s Privacy Violations
`
`Google’s RTB auction process is the most extensive in the world and the resulting
`
`targeted advertising is the primary source of Google’s over One Hundred and Fifty Billion
`
`Dollars (>$150,000,000,000) in annual revenues. Google’s position as one of the world’s most
`
`pervasive technology companies, has given it unique access to the intimate details of each
`
`Consumer’s habits and preferences. Google’s extensive access to consumer data is facilitated by
`
`its various (and often seemingly free) consumer products, including the ubiquitous Google.com
`
`search engine, Google Maps, the Chrome web-browser, Gmail, YouTube, Android, Google
`
`Documents, Google Drive, Google Calendars, Google Flights, Google Fit, Google Pay, etc.
`
`Each of these products provides Google with an opportunity to gather detailed personal
`
`information about its consumers as they engage online in real-time.
`
`8.
`
`Google’s purpose is to build massive repositories of the most current information
`
`available about the people using its services to sell it to Google’s partners. Google secretly
`
`collects and analyzes real-time information about everyone engaging on those platforms and on
`
`third-party platforms through services such as Google Analytics. This results in Google
`
`collecting and selling information about activity users could not expect to be sold. But because
`
`transparency about those practices would lead to less user engagement on those platforms, which
`
`in turn would impede its ability to maximize targeted ad revenues, Google does not disclose
`
`these practices to its account holders.
`
`D.
`
`9.
`
`Google’s Continuing False Promises Regarding Privacy
`
`This pervasive collection and use of its consumers’ personal information
`
`contradicts Google’s promises of user privacy and control. Any consumer can sign up for a
`
`Google Account by clicking a button assenting to the TOS Google has unilaterally drafted which
`
`falsely promises consumers:
`
`
`
`
`
`“We don’t sell your personal information to anyone.”5
`
`“We don’t share information that personally identifies you with
`
`advertisers.”6
`
`
`5 https://about.google/how-our-business-works/
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`3
`
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-03360 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 7 of 65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Advertisers do not pay us for personal information.”7
`
`“We also never use … sensitive information like race, religion, or
`
`sexual orientation, to personalize ads to you.”8
`
`
`
`“We don’t show you personalized ads based on sensitive categories,
`
`such as race, religion, sexual orientation, or health.”9
`
`
`
`“You get to decide how your information is used.”10
`
`11
`
`10.
`
`These representations are intentionally false. The Bidstream Data that Google
`
`sells and discloses to all Google RTB auction participants includes the Google Customer’s
`
`unique device identifier; his/her IP address and Google ID; his/her “User-Agent” information;
`
`the content of the webpage the Google customer is viewing; the “Publisher ID of the website;
`
`and so-called “vertical” information about the Google Customer’s interests that is associated
`
`with the bid that can include information relating to race, religion, health, and sexual orientation.
`
` The vertical information is collected by Google over time and organized for each and every
`
`
`
`
`6Google Privacy Policy dated Feb. 4, 2021.
`7 Id.
`8 https://about.google/how-our-business-works/
`9 Google Privacy Policy dated Feb. 4, 2021.
`10 Pichai, Sundar (May 7, 2019), Google’s Sundar Pichai: Privacy Should Not Be a Luxury
`Good, The New York Times, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/opinion/google-
`sundar-pichai-privacy.html
`11 Your privacy is protected by responsible data practices, Google,
`https://safety.google/intl/en_us/privacy/data/ (last visited Apr. 24, 2021).
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`4
`
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-03360 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 8 of 65
`
`
`
`Google Customer by algorithm into thousands of consumer categories that identify the user’s
`
`personal habits, interests and preferences.
`
`11.
`
`As a result, in the blink of an eye, millions of times a day, Google provides each
`
`and every RTB auction participant with a wealth of information about Google Customers,
`
`including the identity of the customer, their specific device, their specific location; the specific
`
`content of their communications; and highly sensitive information about race, religion, sexual
`
`orientation, and health.
`
`12.
`
`Google even provides RTB bidders with a service that helps them match up the
`
`Google Customer’s current Bidstream Data with the library of information that the recipient has
`
`already collected regarding that Google Customer.
`
`13.
`
`The extensive and detailed nature of this personalized profile that is collected in
`
`real-time by Google about each of its customers, over time, is why Google is able to charge
`
`premium prices from Google RTB auction bidders for placing targeted ads related to each
`
`Google Customer’s activity on the Internet.
`
`14.
`
`All participants in Google RTB auctions including those who do not actually
`
`place bids, can save, store and use the Bidstream Data for each Google Customer. Once a Google
`
`Customer’s Bidstream Data is published by Google, the data is not recoverable.
`
`E.
`
`The Violations of both California and Federal Law
`
`15.
`
`Google adopts California law in its contract with Google Customers. The
`
`Bidstream Data provided by Google constitutes personal information under California law and
`
`the exchange of that data for participation in the auction constitutes a sale of that personal
`
`information. Google’s sale of its customers’ personal information breaches its express promises
`
`and violates laws that prohibit the selling of users’ personal and highly sensitive information.
`
`16.
`
`Google’s RTB process is largely unseen and unknown to Google Customers.
`
`Google does not disclose to its Google Customers its creation and use of massive data sets to
`
`profile them in these auctions, and it does not have Google Customers’ consent for such activity.
`
`The Bidstream Data information that is exchanged every second of every day in Google’s RTB
`
`auctions are not identified in any of Google’s voluminous pubic-facing policies and TOS. The
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03360 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 9 of 65
`
`
`
`scale and success of Google’s RTB auction process is based on the fact that it is invisible to the
`
`millions of Google Customers whose personal and sensitive information is bought and sold every
`
`second of every day.
`
`17.
`
`But for Google’s deceptive practices concerning its collection and use of its
`
`customers’ personal information, users would have turned to other less-invasive options for
`
`browsing the Internet, Google’s customer base would have decreased, and fewer bidders would
`
`have participated in Google’s RTB auctions, which in turn would have decreased the massive
`
`profits Google derives from its hidden RTB auctions.
`
`18.
`
`Google’s blatant misdirection about user privacy is astonishing, but is part of
`
`Google’s general culture of disregard for users’ privacy, and is consistent with Google’s
`
`unscrupulous business practices.12
`
`19.
`
`Google’s practices affect millions of Americans who care about protecting their
`
`privacy. According to Google, more than 200 million people visit Google’s “Privacy Checkup”
`
`website each year. Each day, nearly 20 million people check their Google privacy settings.
`
`People do this because they care about their privacy and believe that they can “control” what
`
`Google shares (because Google has told them so). The truth is that Google “controls” how it uses
`
`consumer data, and its representations about consumer control are meaningless.
`
`F.
`
`Congressional Inquiry has not Stopped the Fraud
`
`20.
`
`This process has been the subject of Congressional inquiry. In July 2020, Senator
`
`Ron Wyden and nine other members of Congress wrote a letter to the Federal Trade Commission
`
`explaining the privacy dangers of RTB systems. The letter explained: “Americans never agreed
`
`to be tracked and have their sensitive information sold to anyone with a checkbook. … This
`
`outrageous privacy violation must be stopped and the companies that are trafficking in
`
`
`12 Nicholas Kristof, With Help from Google, XVideos Lets People Leer at the Worst Moment in a
`Child’s Life, New York Times (April 16, 2021), available at
`https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/16/opinion/sunday/companies-online-rape-videos.html
`(reporting on Google’s role in directing people to video footage of child sexual abuse: “Google is
`the primary means by which [‘porn tubes’] drive traffic to their sites”).
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`6
`
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-03360 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 10 of 65
`
`
`
`Americans’ illicitly obtained private data should be shut down.” 13
`
`21.
`
`On April 1, 2021, a bipartisan group comprised of U.S. Senators Wyden, Cassidy,
`
`Gillibrand, Warner, Brown, and Warren, sent letters to Google and other tech companies
`
`engaged in buying and selling targeted ads through RTB, demanding answers to questions
`
`concerning the continuous selling of personal consumer information to all comers, including
`
`foreign governments:
`
`
`Few Americans realize that some auction participants are
`siphoning off and storing “bidstream” data to compile
`exhaustive dossiers about them. In turn, these dossiers are
`being openly sold to anyone with a credit card, including to
`hedge funds, political campaigns, and even to governments.
`
`Over the past year, multiple reports have indicated that a
`number of federal agencies have purchased personal data
`derived from mobile apps and other online services, in ways
`that potentially merit closer scrutiny. But the United States is
`not the only government with the means and interest in
`acquiring Americans’ personal data. This information would
`be a goldmine for foreign intelligence services that could
`exploit it to inform and supercharge hacking, blackmail, and
`influence campaigns. As Congress debates potential federal
`privacy legislation, we must understand the serious national
`security risks posed by the unrestricted sale of Americans’
`data to foreign companies and governments.14
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all Google
`
`Customers in the United States who, by virtue of browsing on the Chrome browser, was subject
`
`to violations of privacy, and other violations of statutory, Constitutional and common law by
`
`having their personal information sold or otherwise disclosed by Google without their
`
`authorization.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`23.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims in this action.
`
`
`
`13 See Exhibit 2 to this Complaint, Wyden FTC Letter.
`14 See April 1, 2021 letter to Sundar Pichai; Exhibit 1 to the Complaint, and available at
`https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/040121%20Wyden%20led%20Bidstream%20Let
`ter%20to%20Google.pdf
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`7
`
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-03360 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 11 of 65
`
`
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
`
`Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because this is a class action in which the amount in controversy
`
`exceeds $5,000,000, and at least one member of the class is a citizen of a state other than the
`
`state in which Google maintains its headquarters (California).
`
`24.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in this action
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the state law claims arise out of the same case or
`
`controversy as those that give rise to the federal claims.
`
`25.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Google LLC (“Defendant” or
`
`“Google”) because it is headquartered in this District. Google concedes to personal jurisdiction
`
`in its current and prior Google TOS.15
`
`26.
`
`This District is the correct venue because Google is headquartered in this District
`
`and because its TOS provides that Plaintiffs resolve disputes in this District.
`
`27.
`
`Assignment of this case to the San Jose Division is correct because a substantial
`
`part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Santa Clara County,
`
`California. See Civil Local Rule 3-2(c)(e)
`
`III.
`
`PARTIES
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff Meaghan Delahunty is a citizen of California. Delahunty is a Google
`
`Customer who uses the Internet, including websites from which Google sold and shared Google
`
`Customer information without authorization, as alleged herein. Delahunty uses the Chrome web
`
`browser, including to search for and watch audio-visual materials. In order to become a Google
`
`Customer, Delahunty was required to indicate she agreed to Google’s contractual terms and
`
`conditions. On information and belief, unbeknownst to Delahunty at the time, Google sold and
`
`shared her personal information in Google RTB auctions on thousands of occasions over the
`
`years to thousands of unknown auction participants.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Meghan Cornelius is a citizen of Texas. Cornelius is a Google Customer
`
`who uses the Internet, including websites from which Google sold and shared Google Customer
`
`
`15 See Google Terms of Service dated Apr. 14, 2014, Oct. 25, 2017, and Mar. 31, 2020.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`8
`
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-03360 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 12 of 65
`
`
`
`information without authorization, as alleged herein. Cornelius uses the Chrome web browser,
`
`including to search for and watch audio-visual materials. In order to become a Google Customer,
`
`Cornelius was required to indicate she agreed to Google’s contractual terms and conditions. On
`
`information and belief, unbeknownst to Cornelius at the time, Google sold and shared her
`
`personal information in Google RTB auctions on thousands of occasions over the years to
`
`thousands of unknown auction participants.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff John Kevranian is a citizen of California. Kevranian is a Google
`
`Customer who uses the Internet, including websites from which Google sold and shared Google
`
`Customer information without authorization, as alleged herein. Kevranian uses the Chrome web
`
`browser, including to search for and watch audio-visual materials. In order to become a Google
`
`Customer, Kevranian was required to indicate he agreed to Google’s contractual terms and
`
`conditions. On information and belief, unbeknownst to Kevranian at the time, Google sold and
`
`shared his personal information in Google RTB auctions on thousands of occasions over the
`
`years to thousands of unknown auction participants.
`
`31.
`
`Because of the ubiquity of Google’s advertising services to businesses and its
`
`surveillance technologies, it is practically impossible for any American to use the Internet
`
`without their personal information being subject to Google RTB.
`
`32.
`
`On information and belief, Google has sold and shared the personal information
`
`of Plaintiffs and tens of millions of other Americans in Google RTB auctions on countless
`
`occasions over the years to unknown auction participants, including information about the audio-
`
`visual materials they requested, obtained and watched on the Chrome browser which was sold
`
`and shared in Google’s RTB auctions without express written consent.
`
`33.
`
`Google is a limited liability company headquartered in Mountain View,
`
`California. Google is owned by Alphabet Inc., a publicly traded company headquartered in
`
`Mountain View, California. Alphabet trades under the stock trading symbols GOOG and
`
`GOOGL. Alphabet’s revenues are primarily due to Google’s delivery of targeted advertising that
`
`is driven by Google’s RTB auction process. Google engages in, and its activities substantially
`
`affect, interstate trade and commerce. Google provides a range of products and services that are
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03360 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 13 of 65
`
`
`
`marketed, distributed, and offered to consumers throughout the United States.
`
`IV.
`
`FACTS
`
`G.
`
`Google Falsely Represents That It Protects Its Customers’ Privacy
`
`34.
`
`According to Pew Research Center nearly all Americans believe it is important to
`
`be “in control of who can get information” about them; to not be tracked without their consent;
`
`and to be in “control[] of what information is collected about [them].”16
`
`35.
`
`Google’s own researchers have confirmed that consumers are more likely to trust
`
`a company when the consumers believe they have control over how the company uses their
`
`information. In 2016, Google researcher Martin Ortlieb published a research paper titled
`
`“Sensitivity of personal data items in different online contexts,”17 and other Google researchers
`
`have since explained the need for transparency regarding how user information is handled.18
`
`Google researchers have explained that when users are more likely to freely share their
`
`information when trust is established and they believe they are in control of whether and how
`
`their personal information is being used; it’s a matter of trust.19
`
`36.
`
`To instill trust, Google repeatedly has held itself out as a champion of Internet
`
`privacy. For example, on June 6, 2016, a coalition of technology companies and privacy
`
`advocates united to oppose Congressional efforts to expand government surveillance of online by
`
`signing a joint letter with the ACLU, Amnesty International and other NGOs, taking the position
`
`that online surveillance without court oversight raises “civil liberties and human rights concerns”
`
`because it the information obtained “would paint an incredibly intimate picture of an individual’s
`
`
`16 https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/05/20/americans-views-about-data-collection-and-
`security/
`17 Martin Ortlieb and Ryan Garner, Sensitivity of personal data items in different online
`contexts, De Gruyter Oldenbourg (June 3, 2016) available at
`https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/itit-2016-0016/html (Last Visited Apr. 26,
`2021).
`18 Igor Bilogrevic and Martin Ortlieb, “If You Put All The Pieces Together…” – Attitudes
`Towards Data Combination and Sharing Across Services and Companies, CHI Conference
`on Human Factors in Computing Systems (May 2016), available at
`https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2858036.2858432 (Last Visited Apr. 26, 2021).
`19 Martin Ortlieb, et al., Trust, Transparency & Control in Inferred User Interest Models,
`CHI Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (April 2014).
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`10
`
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-03360 Document 1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 14 of 65
`
`
`
`life” that would include “browsing history, email metadata, location information, and the exact
`
`date and time a person signs in or out of a particular online account” which would “reveal details
`
`about a person’s political affiliation, medical conditions, religion, substance abuse history, sexual
`
`orientation” and even physical movements.20
`
`37.
`
`Google also stated that beginning in August 2020, it would restrict advertising for
`
`“products or services that are marketed or targeted with the express purpose of tracking or
`
`monitoring another person or their activities without their authorization,” because such
`
`nonconsensual surveillance of “browsing history” is “dishonest behavior.”21
`
`38.
`
`Google’s recognition of the value of trust on the issue of Internet privacy
`
`underscores its awareness of the materiality o

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