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