Lawyers have issued an open call to users to join their class-action lawsuit against Google for any privacy rights violated by the “incognito mode” of its Chrome browser.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys announced on X that any Chrome browser user who went “incognito” between 2016 and 2023 “may be entitled to compensation of up to $5,000 based on California statutory damages available for privacy violations.”
At the heart of the civil action is a claim that Google collected personal information from incognito users without their permission, even after those users opted not to sync their browsers with their Google accounts, such as Gmail.
Although the case was brought under California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (since Google’s “terms of service” specify that California law is the law governing its company’s activities), any and all Google Chrome users in the United States may qualify.
Here’s what you need to know about joining the class action lawsuit and how you and any other Incognito Mode users you know can determine whether or not you qualify.
California-based lawyers and their clients have issued an open call for more users to join their class-action lawsuit over Google Chrome’s “incognito mode” browser. Above, a Google office
An attorney for the plaintiff, Don Bivens of Arizona, announced on social media site X that any Chrome user who went “incognito” between 2016 and 2023 “may be entitled to compensation of up to $5,000 based on California statutory damages available for privacy violations.”
The revived class action lawsuit follows a U.S. appeals court decision issued last week, on Tuesday, August 20, which stated that Chrome users who claim Google collected their personal information without permission can sue for damages.
The lawsuit, which initially sought at least $5 billion, has been on hold since late December 2023 following a preliminary settlement.
Scottsdale, Arizona-based attorney Don Bivens, who issued a call for new plaintiffs last week, joins a number of firms suing Google over problems with its ostensibly “privacy-protecting” browser feature, Incognito mode.
Last April, the law firm behind the original lawsuit filed in 2020, Boies Schiller Flexner, Susman Godfrey and Morgan & Morgan, demanded $217 million in legal fees just for its own work in putting together the aforementioned settlement with Google.
According Bloomberg LawThese lawyers claimed they had worked a staggering total of 78,880 hours on the case.
Bivens in Arizona presented Your own class action lawsuit on behalf of Katherine Wilson, a California resident, one month later, on May 24, 2024.
“There is no cost to join,” according to The registration page Organized by Bevins.
‘In a contingency fee case, attorneys only get paid if your claim is successful, with no upfront costs or fees you have to file.’
The form on Bivens’ site takes only two minutes to complete, the attorney said.
Last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the trial judge who had previously dismissed the proposed class-action lawsuit should have assessed whether reasonable Chrome users had actually consented to Google collecting their data when they browsed online.
The 9th Circuit’s new appeals ruling, a 3-0 decision, came despite Google’s agreement last year to destroy billions of records to settle the original lawsuit.
Neither Google nor its lawyers responded to requests for comment.
The lower court judge found that Google’s general privacy policy allowing data collection governed because the Mountain View, California-based firm had collected the plaintiffs’ information regardless of the browsers they used.
Above, a 2018 image of flyers handed out at the start of the 35th Chaos Communication Congress (35c3), a hacker convention held in Leipzig, Germany.
Last December, Google agreed to settle a lawsuit claiming it had secretly tracked the internet usage of millions of people who believed they were browsing privately using “incognito” mode.
In Tuesday’s decision, Circuit Judge Milan Smith called that approach misguided.
“In this case, Google had included a general privacy statement, but promoted Chrome by suggesting that certain information would not be sent to Google unless a user turned on syncing,” Smith wrote. “A reasonable user would not necessarily understand that they were consenting to the data collection in question.”
Google’s settlement involving Incognito allowed users to sue the company individually for damages. Tens of thousands of California users have since done so in California courts.
Matthew Wessler, another attorney for the plaintiffs, said he was pleased with the decision and looked forward to the trial.
