Google's Privacy Notice Divides The Supreme Court

Google’s Privacy Notice Divides The Supreme Court

Google’s Privacy Notice Divides The United States Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States while discussing the case that involves Google’s internet privacy did not agree on whether to restrain in the form of settlement in lawsuits that are made to award a considerable amount of money to third parties and charities instead of those that were affected by the wrongdoing.

The settlement fee of Google which was $8.5 million was clearly challenged by one official in the think-tank that was held in Washington D.C.. Most conservative justices also shared the sentiment of the official about the potential or future abuse of these awards. One of these abuses being excessive fees that were paid to the plaintiff’s lawyers.

The liberal justices, on the other hand, argued that the settlement is capable of funneling money on occasions when dividing the said money among groups of plaintiffs would definitely cause per-person payment that is negligible.

The whole issue behind the settlement could be traced back to 2010 when Paloma Gaos filed a lawsuit at the San Jose Federal course against Google. Gaos claimed that the search protocols of Google violated one of the Federal privacy laws. The search protocol of Google involves disclosing the search terms of users to several websites. The claims were upheld by one of the lower courts and Google, which is a division of Alphabet Inc. agreed to pay for the claims to be resolved.

Most people have openly criticized the settlements, arguing that it is quite unfair as it encourages more lawsuits to maximize the fees of the plaintiff’s lawyers and maximizing the damages for the defendant. The settlement was shared as follows; each of the lawyers received $5,000 for representing the plaintiff, attorneys, on the other hand, received over $2.1 million while the rest of the settlement was slated to support projects that focus on internet privacy. Those who criticized the settlement revealed that none of the money was given to the users who were represented by the plaintiffs. Those in support of the settlement argued that the money would be used to support entities that are underfunded.

“Is The System Sensible?” – Samuel Alito

Samuel Alito a Conservative justice raised concerns over how the money was being used. He revealed that part of the settlement money would be sent to groups that plaintiffs ordinarily would not like but have no say in. One of the projects, AARP, which a part of the settlement was to be sent to was engaged in political activity. This issue was raised by Ted Frank and was re-echoed by John Roberts who described the idea of the settlement money going to a project that is already being sponsored by Google as “fishy”. Another conservative Brett Kavanaugh also stated that most of the projects the settlement was sent to were alma maters of several lawyers that were involved in the lawsuit.

The liberal justices, on the other hand, argued that at least an indirect benefit would be gotten by the plaintiffs. Both the liberal and the conservative justices took out time to wonder if the plaintiffs had suffered any harm simply because his internet searches were sent to other websites. They wondered if that would warrant suing the company in Federal Court. They may totally dismiss the case instead of deliberating on the fate of the settlement.

Leave your comment