An American appeals court has rejected one of Google's original legal agreements about its infamous Safari solution that breaks privacy.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Philadelphia, ordered a new hearing on the 2017 payment – $ 5.5 million delivered to Google-backed privacy campaign groups.
In an opinion (PDF) presented yesterday, circuit judge Thomas Ambro, who heard the appeal with Judge Cheryl Ann Krause and Judge Midge Rendell, described the agreement as a "red flag" because the money Google paid for his violations it was not for the people harmed by the actions of Google.
Let's be frank: Bloke drags Google to the US Supreme Court. UU. for a privacy payment of $ 8.5 million
Under a dark legal concept of the United States called c and pres the agreement was paid to the privacy campaign groups that the adtech monolith considers favorably, a practice that has raised those same "red flags" for years. In theory, the cy pres agreements (the French phrase means "close enough") are intended for corporate bodies that are against what it represents the party that loses a court case: in this case, the Google technology company Google gave money to privacy campaign groups
Except that privacy campaign groups are not the same as people who should receive payments from Compensation, as we have reported over the years in considerable detail, Judge Ambro, who delivered the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, described these rewards as mo "particularly worrisome".
In the case of Safari Workaround, Google technicians discovered a way, in the early 2000s, to avoid anti-tracking measures in Apple Safari Browser The so-called Safari Workaround allowed Google to install tracking cookies on devices iOS without the user's knowledge or consent, in an environment supposedly immune to silent tracking cookies.
Since it came to light, Google has literally thrown tens of hours. of their annual earnings on US and other regulators to silence them and leave, and they agreed to stop the practice, without admitting irregularities. Unfortunately for the Chocolate Factory, a particular reward attracted an unusually close scrutiny of Ted Frank, who runs a nonprofit public interest law firm called Center for Class Action Fairness, and is known for his work against more than a class action settlement.  The judge said:
The settlement part of the case will now be heard by another judge for a new decision on who should receive the $ 5.5 million payment.
Frank is also involved in a very similar lawsuit over a Google c and presidential agreement – that was for $ 8.5 million and has been raised to the United States Supreme Court. You can read our interview with Frank on the subject here.
Here, in the United Kingdom, a legal investment company is using the Safari Workaround dataset to try to extract $ 1.5 billion from Google, with the same sum of money potentially again available to individuals to claim a portion of . ®
Balancing consumerization and corporate control