Latest news with #JoséCastañeda
Phone Arena
4 days ago
- Phone Arena
Jury says Google must pay for using cellular data from Android users to collect their personal info
This data was used to help Google send more targeted advertising to Android users and also expand Google's mapping capabilities. As you might expect, Google disagrees with the verdict and plans to appeal. The suit was originally filed back in 2019 in Santa Clara Superior Court on behalf of California residents. A parallel case in federal court is coming up and will be heard in early 2026 for nationwide Android users. The plaintiffs said, "While Plaintiffs' Android devices were in their purses and pockets, and even while sitting seemingly idle on Plaintiffs' nightstands as they slept, Google's Android technology appropriated cellular data paid for by Plaintiffs—without Plaintiffs' knowledge or consent—to send Google all sorts of information. These "passive" information transfers occur because Google has programmed its Android operating system and Google applications to cause mobile devices to provide enormous amounts of information to Google, much of which Google uses to further its own corporate interests, including targeted digital advertising." The complaint noted that less information is sent through passive transfers on iOS because iPhones give users more control over this type of activity. Google's José Castañeda said, "This ruling is a setback for users, as it misunderstands services that are critical to the security, performance, and reliability of Android devices." Castañeda explains that the whole thing was a misunderstanding as Google needed to make the aforementioned data transfers to keep up the performance of billions of Android phones around the world. He noted that these transfers take up less cellular data than a single photo. -Part of the complaint filed by the plaintiffs As for not getting permission from Android users, Castañeda said that Android users do consent to the transfers by agreeing to multiple terms of service agreements and device setting options. Marc Wallenstein, a lawyer representing the consumers, said, "We are incredibly grateful for the jury's verdict, which forcefully vindicates the merits of this case and reflects the seriousness of Google's misconduct." The case is Csupo v. Alphabet Inc., 19CV352557, California Superior Court, Santa Clara County. Secure your connection now at a bargain price! We may earn a commission if you make a purchase Check Out The Offer
Mint
5 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Google ordered to pay over $314 million to Android users in California for ‘stealing' mobile data
Google has been ordered to pay over $314.6 million to Android smartphone users in California after a state court in San Jose ruled in favour of the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit. The jury agreed with claims that Google was liable for sending and receiving information from Android devices without users' permission while the devices were idle. According to the lawsuit, this amounted to 'mandatory and unavoidable burdens shouldered by Android device users for Google's benefit.' The suit further claimed that Google programmed Android phones to transfer data to its servers when users were not connected to a Wi-Fi network, effectively using data that customers were paying for. The tech giant allegedly used this information 'to further its own corporate interests,' including building more targeted digital advertising and expanding its mapping credibility, the lawsuit states. The class-action lawsuit was filed in 2019 in Santa Clara Superior Court on behalf of California residents. A parallel federal case is pending for Android users across the United States, with a trial scheduled to begin in early 2026, Bloomberg reported. 'This ruling is a setback for users, as it misunderstands services that are critical to the security, performance, and reliability of Android devices,' Google's José Castañeda was quoted by Bloomberg as saying. Castañeda further noted that the transfers discussed in the case are necessary to maintain the performance of billions of Android devices worldwide and that they consume less cellular data than sending a single photo. He stated that Android users consent to such transfers through multiple terms of use agreements and device setting options. Notably, this case is only one of several legal challenges facing the search giant in its home country. Last year, a federal judge ruled in favour of the United States government in its anti-monopoly case against Google. The Department of Justice has argued that Google's monopoly can be ended by breaking up its different products, including Chrome browser, Search and Android.
Reuters
13-06-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Google takes a gamble in class action jury trial over cell phone data use
June 4 (Reuters) - Class actions rarely go to trial, which is why a case against Google is proving to be an outlier. The tech giant is defending itself before a jury in Santa Clara County, California, superior court in an $800 million lawsuit, opens new tab by Android smartphone users who say Google misappropriates their cellphone data. A jury of eight women and four men was seated on Tuesday in what lawyers say is expected to be a three-to-four-week trial, with opening statements kicking off on Wednesday. The stakes are high, but the class, which includes an estimated 14 million Californians whose mobile devices use Google's Android operating system, is in some ways just an appetizer. The same plaintiffs lawyers from Korein Tillery; Bartlit Beck and McManis Faulkner are litigating a parallel case in San Jose federal court covering Android users in the other 49 states, with billions of dollars in alleged damages. The plaintiffs in court papers say that even when their phones are turned off, Google causes Android devices to surreptitiously send information over cellular networks 'for Google's own purposes,' including targeted digital advertising. These transfers improperly eat up data that users purchase from their mobile carriers, the plaintiffs allege. Google spokesperson José Castañeda said the claims 'mischaracterize standard industry practices that help protect users and make phones more reliable,' he told me. 'We look forward to making our case in court." A unit of Mountain View, California-based Alphabet, Google has a well-used playbook for settling class actions. Earlier this week, for example, the company agreed to pay $500 million to resolve shareholder litigation — a move that comes on the heels of a $50 million deal in May to resolve class-wide allegations of racial bias against Black employees and a $100 million payout in March to a proposed class of advertisers who claimed they were overcharged for clicks on ads. So why is Google taking this case to trial? In court papers, Google's outside counsel from Cooley argue that Android users incurred no actual losses, and that consumers consented to Google's so-called 'passive' data transfers via terms of service agreements and device settings. The lawyers also dispute the fundamental premise of the case: that cellular data allowances can be considered 'property' under California law and subject to conversion, a civil cause of action that involves taking a person's property without permission. When the 'rhetoric and hyperbole are set aside, Plaintiffs' theory is revealed as little more than a (misguided) product design claim — not wrongful conversion,' defense counsel wrote. The Cooley team, which includes Whitty Somvichian, Michael Attanasio, Max Bernstein and Carrie Lebel, declined comment. The plaintiffs sued Google in Santa Clara County Superior Court in 2019, asserting that they have a property interest in their cellular plans' data allowances, and that each quantum they pay for has a market value. They don't object to data transmissions when they're actively engaged with Google's apps and properties, like checking email or playing a game. But they say Google never told them it would avail itself of their cellular data when they weren't using their phones to send and receive a range of information on their usage. 'The upshot is that these phone users unknowingly subsidize the same Google advertising business that earns over $200 billion a year,' plaintiffs lawyer George Zelcs of Korein Tillery said via email. In addition to injunctive relief, the plaintiffs want Google to reimburse them for the value of the cellular data the company consumed. Per person, the amount is modest – 1 to 1.5 megabytes of data each day, the plaintiffs estimate. To put that in context, Americans used just over 100 trillion megabytes of wireless data in 2023, my Reuters colleagues reported. But with a class period dating back to 2016, the totals add up quickly. In court papers, Google lawyers sound almost incredulous at the amount of the claimed nationwide damages, which they say runs in the tens of billions — more than the $7.4 billion Perdue Pharma settlement for the opioid crisis, they note. "Plaintiffs cannot show remotely commensurate harm to the class," they wrote. In denying Google's motion for summary judgment in May, Judge Charles Adams allowed the plaintiffs' claim for conversion to go forward, ruling there are triable issues of material fact for jurors to decide. While Adams said no direct state law precedent exists as to whether cell phone data is property, he pointed to a decision, opens new tab by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year in the parallel federal class action, Taylor v Google. In that case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi in San Jose sided with Google and dismissed the complaint, opens new tab with prejudice in 2022, only to be reversed and remanded on appeal. The appellate panel in an unpublished decision ruled that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged they incurred damages when Google used their cellular data. Adams in a pre-trial order set some limits on what the lawyers will be allowed to argue to the jury. Plaintiffs may not suggest Google engages in "surveillance" of Android users, he wrote, or that the data transfers are a privacy violation. As for Google, Adams said, it 'must not present evidence or argument suggesting that this case is 'lawyer driven' or was 'invented' by Plaintiffs' counsel.'
Yahoo
28-01-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Milwaukee Public Schools to sue social media companies over youth mental health crisis
Milwaukee Public Schools will add its name to a growing list of school districts that allege major social media platforms — Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and Snapchat — are "substantially" contributing to a crisis in youth mental health. Across the U.S., more than 1,400 school districts have filed lawsuits alleging social media companies intentionally target young people with their products and prioritize profits over users' mental health, according to Keller Rohrback L.L.P, the law firm MPS school board members voted this month to represent the district. "(Social media companies) have made choices to target youth, to maximize the time youth spend on (their) social media platforms, and then designed their algorithms to feed children harmful content, like videos promoting eating disorders, violence, self-harm, and suicide," according to Keller Rohrback L.L.P. The MPS lawsuit is expected to be filed in mid-February, according to a statement from the district. The lawsuit carries no financial risk for MPS. The district is not responsible for paying legal fees if it is unsuccessful in recovering money, according to the already-negotiated contract between the MPS school board and Keller Rohrback. If successful, MPS would pay the firm a percentage of its earnings. In Wisconsin and elsewhere, the topic of youth mental health has gained attention, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2024, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for requiring warning labels on social media platforms, saying the sites are a contributor to a crisis in youth mental health. In Wisconsin, 34% of high school students had reported feeling so sad or hopeless "almost every day for two or more weeks in a row" to the point that they "stopped doing some usual activities," according to the most recent data from the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey Nearly one in five high schoolers, or 18%, said they had considered suicide. A later report by the state's Office of Children's Mental Health cited the same statistics when calling youth mental health an "extremely concerning" issue. The parent companies for Facebook and Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok did not respond to request for comment. A spokesperson for Google, which owns YouTube, said "the allegations in these complaints are simply not true." 'Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work. In collaboration with youth, mental health and parenting experts, we built services and policies to provide young people with age-appropriate experiences, and parents with robust controls," reads the statement from José Castañeda. More: Despite increased focus on mental health, myths and misunderstanding still common School districts across the U.S. are filing their lawsuits individually, in either federal court or state court in California. Keller Rohrback provided a list of other Wisconsin school districts involved. The firm represents some, but not all, of the districts. Barron Area School District Cornell School District Cuba City School District Darlington Community School District Green Bay Area Public School District Hudson School District Johnson Creek School District Kenosha Unified School District Kimberly Area School District McFarland School District Milwaukee Public Schools Prescott School District Racine Unified School District School District of Belleville West Allis-West Milwaukee School District Unified School District of Antigo Cleo Krejci covers K-12 education and workforce development as a Report For America corps member based at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Contact her at CKrejci@ or follow her on Twitter @_CleoKrejci. For more information about Report for America, visit This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Milwaukee Public Schools to sue social media companies over mental health
