Excerpt
Google was held liable for deceptively tracking users' location data, even after they had disabled the "Location History" setting on their smartphones.
Our analysis
-The lawsuit against Google revolves around the collection of consumers' geolocation data on smartphones, even when users disabled location tracking: despite disabling the "Location History" setting, Google continued tracking device locations through other settings like Web & App Activity, subsequently using this data for targeted advertising.
The software is pre-programmed into Android phones purchased by consumers. The company's extensive data collection practices, including user physical locations, enable them to target users in specific geographic locations, often without their knowledge or consent.
Outcome
Google has agreed to pay $85 million to settle claims made against the company under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and will also adjust its practices accordingly. As part of the settlement, the state sought financial compensation and mandated that Google disclose its earnings from deceptive activities in Arizona, in addition to potential civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation.
Parties
State of Arizona and Google LLC
Case number
CV2020-006219
Decision
Related deceptive patterns
Obstruction is a type of deceptive pattern that deliberately creates obstacles or roadblocks in the user's path, making it more difficult for them to complete a desired task or take a certain action. It is used to exhaust users and make them give up, when their goals are contrary to the business's revenue or growth objectives. It is also sometimes used to soften up users in preparation for a bigger deception. When users are frustrated or fatigued, they become more susceptible to manipulation.
Sneaking involves intentionally withholding or obscuring information that is relevant to the user (e.g. additional costs or unwanted consequences), often in order to manipulate them into taking an action they would not otherwise choose.
There are numerous ways to interfere with the visual design of a page to hide, obscure or disguise information. Visual perception can be manipulated by using small, low contrast text. Comprehension can be manipulated by creating a chaotic or overwhelming interface. User's expectations can be violated by placing important information in styles or location they would not expect.
Forced action involves a provider offering users something they want - but requiring them to do something in return. It may be combined with other deceptive patterns like sneaking (so users don't notice it happening) or trick wording (to make the action seem more desirable than it is). Sometimes an optional action is presented as a forced action, through the use of visual interference or trick wording. In cookie consent interfaces, forced action is sometimes carried out through "bundled consent". This involves combining multiple agreements into a single action, and making it hard or impossible for a user to selectively grant consent.
Related laws
Prohibits deceptive practices, fraud, and misrepresentations in the sale or advertisement of merchandise.