In a significant ruling that underscores the ongoing scrutiny of Big Tech’s data practices, a U.S. District Court judge in the Northern District of California has denied Google’s motion to dismiss key claims in a class action lawsuit. The case alleges that Google collected users’ personal data without proper consent, violating federal and state privacy laws. This decision keeps alive claims under the Wiretap Act and California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA), forcing the company to defend its data collection and consent mechanisms in court.
The Court’s Ruling and What It Means
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected Google’s argument that its data collection occurred in the “ordinary course of business,” a common defense in electronic communications cases. According to reports from Courthouse News Service and court filings, the plaintiffs claim Google intercepted and used personal data in ways that went beyond what users reasonably expected or consented to.
The ruling requires Google to provide detailed answers regarding its data collection practices, consent flows, and how user information is handled across its ecosystem — including Chrome, search, advertising networks, and other services.
This is not Google’s first rodeo with privacy litigation in the Northern District of California. The company has faced multiple high-profile suits over Incognito mode tracking, real-time bidding (RTB) data sharing, and other surveillance practices. However, allowing Wiretap Act claims to proceed is particularly notable, as the statute imposes strict liability for the intentional interception of electronic communications.
Key Legal Claims at Issue
- Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Prohibits the intentional interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications without consent. Plaintiffs allege Google’s practices effectively “wiretapped” user data streams for advertising and other purposes.
- California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA): Addresses unauthorized access to computer data and systems, providing another avenue for plaintiffs to challenge Google’s alleged data practices.
The judge’s denial of dismissal means the case will move forward with discovery, potentially revealing internal documents on Google’s consent architecture and data flows.
Broader Implications for Privacy Compliance
This lawsuit highlights several critical issues for businesses operating in today’s digital environment:
- Consent Must Be Granular and Informed: Broad or implied consent defenses are increasingly failing in court. Organizations need explicit, purpose-specific consent mechanisms that users clearly understand.
- “Ordinary Course of Business” Is Not a Blank Check: Courts are skeptical of companies claiming that invasive tracking is standard practice when it conflicts with privacy policies or user expectations.
- Data Minimization and Purpose Limitation: Collecting more data than necessary — or using it for secondary purposes — heightens litigation risk under both U.S. state laws and international frameworks like the GDPR.
- Cross-Border and Multi-Jurisdictional Risks: Even U.S.-focused cases have ripple effects. Companies subject to GDPR must ensure practices align with stricter EU standards on lawful basis for processing, or face parallel enforcement actions.
For privacy professionals and compliance teams, this serves as a stark reminder: robust Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs), detailed records of processing activities (RoPA), and regular audits of tracking technologies are no longer optional.
Lessons for the Industry
Google’s situation is emblematic of a larger trend. Regulators and courts are cracking down on “dark patterns,” persistent identifiers, and surveillance advertising models. Similar cases against other tech giants (Meta, Amazon, etc.) suggest that plaintiffs’ attorneys are leveraging older statutes like the Wiretap Act in creative ways to address modern tracking concerns.
Businesses should take proactive steps:
- Review and strengthen consent management platforms (CMPs).
- Minimize reliance on third-party tracking.
- Invest in first-party data strategies with transparent user controls.
- Prepare for increased discovery demands in privacy litigation.
At Captain Compliance, we help organizations navigate these complex challenges with practical, defensible privacy programs that reduce risk while supporting business objectives.
What’s Next?
The case will now proceed to discovery and potential trial or settlement negotiations. We’ll continue monitoring developments, as outcomes could influence consent standards across the adtech and digital services sectors.
What are your thoughts on this ruling? Has your organization adjusted its data practices in response to rising Wiretap Act and state privacy litigation? Share in the comments below.
