“They are promising consumers their browser is a safe place to go, while at the same time, the advertising division is hacking their way around privacy provisions in the Chrome contract,” Barnes said. “Google told users it would protect their privacy as long as they don’t do certain things and they break that promise every day.”īarnes said the problem is that Google has perverse incentives, in that one part of the company offers the web browser while another part of the company engages in advertising tracking and is therefore incentivized to work around the privacy options offered by the browser.

“This is an important case,” class attorney Jay Barnes told Koh. The plaintiffs in the class action claim they signed up for Chrome because Google explicitly said they would not have their browsing history sent to Google unless they decided to “sync” the browser with their account.ĭespite these assurances, Chrome tracked their web browsing and sent it to Google, in violation of federal law and the newly minted California Consumer Privacy Act. “The law is developing so it’s always a challenging field,” Koh said. While Koh’s interjection may not bode well for Google’s attempt to get the case dismissed, which was the purpose of Thursday’s hearing, the judge also acknowledged the issues brought up during the hearing were complex and murky. “I think slicing the baloney that thin is disturbing.” “I’m actually more disturbed by Google’s answer,” Koh said at one point. District Court Judge Lucy Koh said she was “disturbed” by Google’s rationale when discussing how the company’s privacy policy relates to its policy of collecting information regarding the internet browsing habits of Chrome users. (CN) - A federal judge chastised lawyers representing Google for splitting hairs during a hearing Thursday over whether the company is illegally collecting private information from users of the Chrome internet browser.

Google chrome browser tracking