• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

Google on Monday again asked a federal judge to reverse a jury verdict requiring the company to pay $425 million for allegedly violating mobile users' privacy.

The verdict, handed down in September, came in a class-action lawsuit brought in 2020 by smartphone users, including lead plaintiff Anibal Rodriguez, who said Google gathered analytics information after they attempted to block data collection.

Rodriguez and the others alleged Google uses its Analytics for Firebase code -- which can collect data about app usage -- to gather app-related data even when users toggle off a "Web & App Activity" setting.

The dispute went to trial last year, resulting in a $425 million verdict against Google on two related privacy claims -- both of which required the jury to find that mobile users had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data, and that Google engaged in highly offensive conduct.

The jury decided in favor of Google on a claim that it violated California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act -- an anti-hacking law that prohibits anyone from accessing computer systems without authorization.

Google now argues in its new court papers that the jury's verdict against it on the privacy claims should be scrapped for several reasons, including that the verdict wasn't supported by the facts in the case.

"The collection of pseudonymous, de-identified data is not 'highly offensive,'” Google writes in papers filed with U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco, who presided over the trial.

"Plaintiffs presented no survey evidence, expert testimony, or other uniform evidence establishing that users were actually misled by Google’s disclosures," the company added.

Google called attention in its papers to other court rulings in privacy cases, including a recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that sided with Microsoft in a battle over the collection of analytics data from the ecommerce site PetSuppliesPlus.com. A three-judge panel of that court ruled last year that the plaintiff failed to show that Microsoft's analytics service collected "embarrassing, invasive, or otherwise private information."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs also on Monday asked Seeborg to reverse the jury's decision rejecting the claim that Google violated California's anti-hacking law. Class counsel wrote that no "reasonable juror" could have found in favor of Google, given the evidence in the case.

"The evidence presented at trial permitted only one reasonable conclusion: that Google is liable to Plaintiffs for their claim under California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act," counsel wrote.