Calhoun v. Google – Continued Considerations for Privacy Notices

When privacy meets complexity, the legal landscape shifts. The recent Ninth Circuit decision in Calhoun v. Google has thrown a spotlight on the critical importance of clear and comprehensible privacy notices.

Read the full article.

About the authors:
Jack F. Altura
Tomio Narita

Transcript

Welcome to Womble Perspectives, where we explore a wide range of topics, from the latest legal updates to industry trends to the business of law. Our team of lawyers, professionals and occasional outside guests will take you through the most pressing issues facing businesses today and provide practical and actionable advice to help you navigate the ever changing legal landscape.

With a focus on innovation, collaboration and client service. We are committed to delivering exceptional value to our clients and to the communities we serve. And now our latest episode.

When privacy meets complexity, the legal landscape shifts. The recent Ninth Circuit decision in Calhoun v. Google has thrown a spotlight on the critical importance of clear and comprehensible privacy notices. 

In Calhoun v. Google, a group of Google Chrome users took legal action against Google, alleging that the company collected their personal information without proper consent. These users had chosen not to sync their Chrome browsers with their Google accounts, believing their data would remain private.

This case is a milestone in privacy law as it challenges the adequacy of Google's privacy notices. It raises a fundamental question about whether a reasonable person would understand and consent to the data collection practices described in such notices.

At the heart of this case is the clarity and comprehensibility of privacy notices. The legal battle revolved around whether Google's privacy policies were sufficiently clear for an average user to understand what data was being collected and how it would be used.

The plaintiffs argued that Google breached the Chrome Privacy Notice by collecting their personal information despite the notice's assurances that no data would be sent to Google if sync was turned off. This discrepancy between the privacy notice and Google's actual practices formed the crux of their complaint.

Google's defense rested on its general privacy policies and the concept of "browser agnosticism." They argued that the data collection practices were consistent across all browsers, not just Chrome, and that users had consented to these practices through Google's broader privacy policies.

Initially, the district court ruled in favor of Google, accepting their argument that the general privacy policies governed the data collection practices, rather than the specific Chrome Privacy Notice.

However, the Ninth Circuit reversed this ruling, emphasizing the importance of the "reasonable person" standard. The court argued that a reasonable user of a service, not a technical expert, should be able to understand the privacy notices.
. In this case, the court found that Google's conflicting privacy notices created confusion for the average user.

The Ninth Circuit highlighted the tension between Google's general privacy policies, which broadly described data collection practices, and the Chrome Privacy Notice, which explicitly stated that no data would be sent unless sync was enabled. This inconsistency led the court to conclude that a reasonable user might not understand they were consenting to data collection.

One of the key takeaways from Calhoun v. Google is the necessity of aligning privacy notices with actual data collection practices. Misalignment can lead to legal disputes and a loss of consumer trust.

Clear and transparent communication is vital for building consumer trust. Privacy notices should be written in plain language, avoiding technical jargon, to ensure that users fully understand the terms.

Maintaining consistency across multiple privacy documents is another critical aspect. Conflicting information in different documents can create confusion and undermine the credibility of privacy notices.

Plain language is essential for enhancing user understanding. Privacy notices should be concise, clear, and free from legalese, making them accessible to the average user.

Regular reviews and updates of privacy policies are also necessary to reflect changes in data practices, ensuring that privacy notices remain accurate and relevant over time.

The Calhoun v. Google case provides several critical lessons for businesses. First, it emphasizes the importance of ensuring that privacy notices are clear and comprehensible to the average user. It's crucial to align these notices with actual data collection practices and maintain consistency across all privacy-related documents. Using plain language is key to enhancing user understanding.

Additionally, businesses should regularly review and update their privacy policies to reflect any changes in data practices.

The decision in Calhoun v. Google has broader implications for privacy practices across businesses. It highlights the necessity for vigilant compliance with privacy laws and the need for transparency in data collection practices.

The landscape of privacy law is continually evolving, and businesses must stay vigilant to ensure compliance. To stay ahead in this evolving landscape, businesses should prioritize transparency, clarity, and consistency in their privacy practices. By doing so, they can build trust with their users and ensure compliance with privacy laws. 

The Calhoun v. Google case is a testament to the need for ongoing vigilance and adherence to best practices in privacy notices and data collection practices.

Thank you for listening to Womble Perspectives. If you want to learn more about the topics discussed in this episode, please visit The Show Notes, where you can find links to related resources mentioned today. The Show Notes also have more information about our attorneys who provided today's insights, including ways to reach out to them.

Don't forget to subscribe via your podcast player of choice so that you never miss an episode. Thank you again for listening.