Federal Court rules Google misled consumers on location data collection and use

Result of ACCC proceedings against the search engine giant for location data collection, use and information across mobile devices described as world-first

Australia’s Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is claiming a world-first after the Federal Court found Google guilty of misleading consumers about how personal location data collected across Android devices was captured and used.  

The findings released today come more than 18 months after the regulatory watchdog kicked off proceedings against the search engine giant, alleging misleading and false representation around consumer data from at least January 2017. The case related to location data collected and used when Google Account settings were enabled or disabled via Android mobile devices.  

Today, the Federal Court ruled Google misrepresented details around the ‘location history’ setting when consumers created a new Google account during the initial set-up of their Android devices between January 2017 and December 2018. Specifically, this setting had been positioned as the only setting affecting whether Google collected, kept or used personally identifiable data about a consumer’s location. Yet another setting, called ‘Web & App Activity,’ also enabled the company to collect, store and use this data when turned on. This was set ‘on’ by default on devices.  

The court also found when consumers turned the location history setting off, they were further misled by not being informed that the Web & App Activity, when left on, would allow Google to still collect, store and use personally identifiable location data. In addition, when consumers did access the latter setting on their Android device, they were not informed of the setting’s relevance to the collection of their location data.  

Within its findings, the court highlighted a number of representations published by Google that added to the misleading information around location data in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law.  

In his judgment, justice Thomas Thawley concluded that while Google’s conduct would not have misled all reasonable users in classes identified as part of the court case, Google’s conduct did mislead, or was likely to mislead, some reasonable users within the particular classes identified.  

“The Court must put itself in the position of the relevant consumer. There is no question that the more one pores over the relevant screens, the more one notices matters of detail, the more one appreciates the literal meaning rather than what might first have been understood and the more one sees nuances and subtleties which might have been overlooked by the consumer,” Thawley stated in his judgment.

“The relevant consumers in the classes identified by the ACCC would have read the material in a manner consistent with the consumer’s context. The question is not whether, on close analysis of written material by the Court after detailed argument, the various screens can be seen to be strictly accurate. The question is whether Google’s conduct as a whole, including what was and what was not stated on the various screens, was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive reasonable members of the class of consumers likely to be affected by the conduct.”  

Justice Thawley agreed a consumer spending a lot of time analysing what was stated on the ‘Privacy and Terms’ screen and the ‘More Option’ screen would be less likely to conclude ‘location history’ was the only setting that controlled everything to do with location. Yet he didn’t agree this type of consumer represented the masses.  

“It must be borne steadily in mind that one is talking about a reasonable user setting up his or her device,” Thawley continued. “I am satisfied that there were reasonable users in that class who would have gleaned [incorrectly] from scanning over or reading quickly through the More Options screen, that Google would not be obtaining, retaining or using personal data about location whilst the Location History setting was ‘off’.  

“I am satisfied that Google’s conduct assessed as a whole was misleading or deceptive of, or likely to mislead or deceive, ordinary members within the class identified by the ACCC, acting reasonably.”  

ACCC chair, Rod Sims, described the Federal Court’s findings as an “important victory for consumers” and anyone concerned about their privacy online.  

“The court’s decision sends a strong message to Google and others that big business must not mislead their customers,” he stated. “Today’s decision is an important step to make sure digital platforms are up front with consumers about what is happening with their data and what they can do to protect it.  

“Companies that collect information must explain their settings clearly and transparently, so consumers are not misled. Consumers should not be kept in the dark when it comes to the collection of their personal location data.”  

The ACCC is seeking declarations, penalties, publication and compliance orders as a result of the proceedings, and for Google to publish a notice to Australian consumers to better explain its location data settings in future.  

Don’t miss out on the wealth of insight and content provided by CMO A/NZ and sign up to our weekly CMO Digest newsletters and information services here. 

You can also follow CMO on Twitter: @CMOAustralia, take part in the CMO conversation on LinkedIn: CMO ANZ, follow our regular updates via CMO Australia's Linkedin company page.

 

 

Join the newsletter!

Or

Sign up to gain exclusive access to email subscriptions, event invitations, competitions, giveaways, and much more.

Membership is free, and your security and privacy remain protected. View our privacy policy before signing up.

Error: Please check your email address.
Show Comments

Latest Videos

More Videos

I found decent information in your article. I am impressed with how nicely you described this subject, It is a gainful article for us. Th...

Daniel Hughes

What 1800 Flowers is doing to create a consistent customer communications experience

Read more

Extremely informative. One should definitely go through the blog in order to know different aspects of the Retail Business and retail Tec...

Sheetal Kamble

SAP retail chief: Why more retailers need to harness data differently

Read more

It's actually a nice and helpful piece of info. I am satisfied that you shared this helpful information with us. Please stay us informed ...

FIO Homes

How a brand facelift and content strategy turned real estate software, Rockend, around

Read more

I find this very strange. The Coles store i shop in still has Flouro lights? T though this would have been the 1st thing they would have ...

Brad

Coles launches new sustainability initiative

Read more

Well, the conversion can be increased by just using marketing, but in general if you are considering an example with Magento, then it is ...

Bob

How Remedy is using digital marketing and commerce to drive conversion

Read more

Blog Posts

Why conflict can be good for your brand

Conflict is essentially a clash. When between two people, it’s just about always a clash of views or opinions. And when it comes to this type of conflict, more than the misaligned views themselves, what we typically hate the most is our physiological response.

Kathy Benson

Chief client officer, Ipsos

Brand storytelling lessons from Singapore’s iconic Fullerton hotel

In early 2020, I had the pleasure of staying at the newly opened Fullerton Hotel in Sydney. It was on this trip I first became aware of the Fullerton’s commitment to brand storytelling.

Gabrielle Dolan

Business storytelling leader

You’re doing it wrong: Emotion doesn’t mean emotional

If you’ve been around advertising long enough, you’ve probably seen (or written) a slide which says: “They won’t remember what you say, they’ll remember how you made them feel.” But it’s wrong. Our understanding of how emotion is used in advertising has been ill informed and poorly applied.

Zac Martin

Senior planner, Ogilvy Melbourne

Sign in