“iPhone users suing Google over data-collection claims may be seeking as much as 3.2 billion pounds ($4.29 billion), the search giant said in a court filing,” Jonathan Browning reports for Bloomberg. “The group representing iPhone users, known as Google You Owe Us, now includes 4.4 million people, according to documents filed with the court at a hearing Monday. The group says the Alphabet Inc. unit unlawfully collected people’s personal information by bypassing Apple Inc.’s iPhone default privacy settings.”
“While any potential damages are still to be determined, the group has suggested each individual could receive 750 pounds if the case is successful, Google said in court documents.,” Browning reports. “Led by consumer advocate Richard Lloyd, the group is seeking permission to hear the case as a ‘representative action’ that is akin to a U.S. class action, arguing that all the customers share the same interests.”
“The group said that Google used an algorithm that allowed developers to track a user’s browsing history and collect personal information,” Browning reports. “The algorithm acted to get around the default settings of Apple’s Safari browser, which blocked third-party tracking via cookies.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: DuckDuckGo is a search engine that doesn’t track users.
SEE ALSO:
Google responds to Apple’s Intelligent Tracking Prevention with new Google Analytics cookie is designed to keep ad tracking from Safari intact – September 27, 2017
UK Supreme Court allows Google to appeal ruling granting Apple Safari users the right to sue over ad tracking – July 29, 2015
Apple slams Google in Safari 7.1 release notes: ‘Adds DuckDuckGo, a search engine that doesn’t track users’ – September 18, 2014
Google to pay $17 million to settle U.S. states’ Safari user tracking probe – November 20, 2013
Judge dismisses case against Google over Safari user tracking – October 11, 2013
UK Apple Safari users sue Google for secretly tracking Web browsing – January 28, 2013
Google pays $22.5 million to settle charges of bypassing Apple Safari privacy settings – August 9, 2012
US FTC votes to fine Google $22.5 million for bypassing Safari privacy settings; Settlement allows Google to admit no liability – July 31, 2012
Google’s D.C. lobbyists have outspent Apple nearly 10 to 1 so far this year – July 23, 2012
Google to pay $22.5 million to settle charges over bypassing privacy settings of millions of Apple users – July 10, 2012
Apple’s anti-user tracking policy has mobile advertisers scrambling – May 9, 2012
Google said to be negotiating amount of U.S. FTC fine over Apple Safari breach – May 4, 2012
Cookies and privacy, Google and Safari – February 25, 2012
Obama’s privacy plan puts pinch on Google – February 24, 2012
Obama administration outlines online privacy guidelines – February 23, 2012
Google sued by Apple Safari-user for bypassing browser privacy – February 21, 2012
Google responds to Microsoft over privacy issues, calls IE’s cookie policy ‘widely non-operational’ – February 21, 2012
Google’s tracking of Safari users could prompt FTC investigation – February 18, 2012
WSJ: Google tracked iPhone, iPad users, bypassing Apple’s Safari browser privacy settings; Microsoft denounces – February 17, 2012
Google will still track people via web sites displaying Google ads
That’s why you use Ghostery or similar
You know that old adage about what socialists do when they run out of other people’s money? Apparently, they just go and tax another country’s people. Call it a “claim.” $60 per man woman and child in the UK ought to keep that health care service running for a few weeks. Then it will be Apple’s turn again. Why always Apple and Google? Ask Willie Sutton.
Actually the uk is run by a Conservative government – that’s right of centre, so it’s a far cry from socialist.l
It doesn’t matter who is in charge at the moment, all those Euro-Socialist bills that have been piling up have to be paid. I have also never seen a more ineffectual bunch of conservatives. They can’t even manage to get Brexit done after the people voted for it.
So the crux of the case is whether the “Do Not Track” function was intended to only block tracking by cookies, short of the users’ expectations of the function blocking every type of tracking.
Put another way it’s like saying the diet supplement claims it will keep you from gaining fat (blocks sugar conversion to fat) but you get fat anyway since you also eat a lot of fries.