wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Google faces $5 billion lawsuit in the US for tracking and intercepting user’s personal information via Incognito mode

Three residents of California, United States have sued Google in a class-action lawsuit for persistently tracking users and misleading users about Chrome’s privacy protections. Google continues to track users when they visit a website that uses Google Analytics or Google Ad Manager, even in Incognito mode, the lawsuit stated. It does so by collecting the address, browser and device information, and the webpage content that the consumer is actually looking at, it alleged, adding that this is when Google claims to be protecting the privacy of users when in Incognito mode.

“This is precisely the type of private, personal information users wish and expect to protect when they have taken these steps to control what information is shared with Google,” the suit said. The lawsuit was filed by California residents Chasom Brown, Maria Nguyen, and William Byatt individually and on behalf of all Google users whose activity was tracked from June 1, 2016 onward, against Google and its parent company Alphabet. They have demanded $5 billion in damages from Google.

Chrome’s Incognito mode stops the browser from saving user’s browsing history locally, but does not block Google or third-party companies from tracking users online. “Google’s tracking occurred and continues to occur no matter how sensitive or personal users’ online activities are. By tracking, collecting, and intercepting Plaintiffs’ personal communications indiscriminately—regardless of whether Plaintiffs have attempted to avoid such tracking pursuant to Google’s instructions—Google has gained a complete, cradle-to-grave profile of Plaintiffs without their consent” the lawsuit said.

At various points during Incognito browsing, Google ensures that user privacy is being protected, and that the user is in control of their information. At one stage, Google says that searching and browsing in “private browsing mode” will “turn off” any “search customization” and “using search-related activity”. But Google continues to track, collect, and identify their browsing data in real time, “in contravention of federal and state laws on wiretapping and in violation of consumers’ rights to privacy”, it alleged.

The lawsuit claimed that Google is in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, which prohibits interception of content of electronic communication through the use of a safe device. It violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the suit further contested.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Google button tracks and ‘intercepts’ user activity, the lawsuit claims

Google’s “Sign-in with Google” button on third-party websites also has numerous tracking functions, which include the same type of automatic data collection as Google Analytics and Ad Manager. When a visitor’s browser loads the Google Button on the screen, Google’s code is called from its servers, which helps Google track the consumer.

Approved third-party data brokers such as Comscore, which is registered with California’s CCPA data broker registry, also provide digital pixels to be embedded within the Websites’ code, as per the suit. Google and Comscore are able to track and “measure” consumers by tracking these pixels and the unique resulting displays, even when users are in private mode, it claimed.

“Regardless of whether a user follows Google’s instructions advising how to be online without being tracked by Google”, it still leverages its other services “to intercept and collect identifying information about who and where individual consumers are” by analysing device and geolocation data – which it obtains through users’ numerous and unavoidable contacts with Google, the lawsuit said.

Written By

I cover health, policy issues such as intermediary liability, data governance, internet shutdowns, and more. Hit me up for tips.

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



The DSCI's guidelines are patient-centric and act as a data privacy roadmap for healthcare service providers.


In this excerpt from the book, the authors focus on personal data and autocracies. One in particular – Russia.  Autocracies always prioritize information control...


By Jai Vipra, Senior Resident Fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy The use of new technology, including facial recognition technology (FRT) by police...


By Stella Joseph, Prakhil Mishra, and Yash Desai The Government of India circulated proposed amendments to the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 (“E-Commerce Rules”) which...


By Rahul Rai and Shruti Aji Murali A little less than a year since their release, the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020 is being amended....

You May Also Like


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ