From EPIC.org:
Last week, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argumentheard arguments in Google v. Calhoun, a case about whether users really consented to Google’s collecting and sharing their data when Google’s own published policies said contradictory things about those practices. EPIC’s amicus brief asserted that Google cannot argue that consumers reasonably consented to its data practices when the company’s privacy policy said it would not engage in those practices, even though Google disclaimed any liability in its contradictory general disclosure terms. During oral argument, the judges signaled agreement with EPIC’s position.
In this case, plaintiffs sued because Google represented to Chrome users that it would not collect browsing history unless the users chose to sync that data to the cloud. But, in fact, Google did collect and transfer information about Chrome user’s browsing habits even if they did not choose to sync their data to the cloud. Google argued in its defense that these users had nevertheless consented to the collection and transfer of their sensitive browsing data based on general disclosures in its user agreement.
The Ninth Circuit judges seemed to agree with plaintiffs and EPIC, explaining that the federal judge had an 8-hour evidentiary hearing to understand the data collection practices and no reasonable user can be held to that standard to consent to them. One judge also said that reading complicated Terms of Service online is like reading hieroglyphics.
Read more at EPIC.