Oldenburg v. Google Inc

Filing 1

COMPLAINT with Jury Demand; against Google Inc by Jason Oldenburg. ( Filing Fee PAID $350 receipt number 0757-1454279) (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Mather, Corey) [Transferred from Wisconsin Eastern on 6/25/2012.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Jason Oldenburg, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

vs.
Google, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Jason Oldenburg (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, hereby brings this
class action complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and alleges as
follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.

Without disclosure to consumers, and without their permission, Google, Inc.,

inserted code into its Google Ads that deactivated the security protections built into the Safari
web browser and enabled tracking cookies to be installed on Safari-users’ computers and
smartphones.
2.

This class action seeks to redress the invasion of privacy and violations of federal

law arising from Google, Inc.’s surreptitious code. This lawsuit seeks damages for Plaintiff and
the Class, including, but not limited to: damages and other available relief under the Federal
Wiretap Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; and the Stored Electronics Communications
Act; Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees; and the costs of this lawsuit.
Jurisdiction and Venue
3.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil action under 28 U.S.C. §

1331, in that Plaintiff alleges violations of federal law, namely the Federal Wiretap Act as
amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq., the Computer

Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq., and the Stored Electronics Communications Act,
18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.
4.

Jurisdiction in this civil action is further authorized pursuant to the Class Action

Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), as some class members’ citizenship is diverse from
Defendant, there are more than 100 putative class members, and the amount in controversy is in
excess of $5,000,000.
5.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties because Defendant conducts

substantial business in this state, has systematic and continuous contact with this state, and has
agents and representatives that can be found in this state. Google maintains an office in
Wisconsin.
6.

Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as a substantial part

of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.
Parties
7.

Plaintiff Jason Oldenburg is a resident of the State of Wisconsin. Plaintiff owns

an iPhone that uses the Safari web browser. Within the past year, Plaintiff has used his iPhone to
visit the Google website and has viewed ads on various websites that have Google Ads.
8.

Defendant Google, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in Mountain

View, California, with additional offices all over the world, including offices in Australia, Brazil,
Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Kenya, and the United Kingdom.
Facts
9.

Google describes itself as “a global technology leader focused on improving the

ways people connect with information.” See http://investor.google.com/corporate/faq.html#toclocated.
10.

“Google primarily generates revenue by delivering relevant, cost-effective online

advertising. Businesses use our AdWords program to promote their products and services with
targeted advertising. In addition, third-parties that comprise our Google network use our Google
2

AdSense program to deliver relevant ads that generate revenue and enhance the user experience.”
Id.
11.

Through Google’s AdWords and AdSense programs, businesses and other third

parties could have their ads displayed on various websites (hereinafter “Google Ads”).
12.

Safari is an internet web browser offered by Apple, Inc., that is pre-installed on

iPhones, iPads, and Mac computers, and can be installed on PCs. To protect consumers’ privacy,
Safari’s default settings block tracking the behavior of its users, which includes blocking thirdparty cookies.
13.

On February 17, 2012, The Wall Street Journal reported that Stanford University

researcher Jonathan Mayer had discovered that Google inserted certain code in the Google Ads,
and that the code circumvents Safari’s default privacy settings that block third-party cookies.1 By
circumventing Safari’s default privacy settings, cookies can then be placed on Safari users’
devices and track the users’ browsing activity (“tracking cookies”).
14.

Consumers’ browsing activity has economic value. Google’s Screenwise program

pays up to $25 in gift cards for information on participants’ web usage. See
http://www.google.com/landing/screenwisepanel/
15.

Prior to The Wall Street Journal’s reporting, Google provided browser

instructions for Safari users: “Safari is set by default to block all third-party cookies. If you have
not changed those settings, this option effectively accomplishes the same thing as setting the
[Google advertising cookie opt-out plugin].”

1. A “cookie” is “a small file or part of a file stored on a World Wide Web user’s computer, created and
subsequently read by a Web site server, and containing personal information (as a user identification
code, customized preferences, or a record of pages visited).” See http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/cookies.

3

16.

Google has since removed the above-quoted language from its webpage.

17.

Google admits that it used code that was designed to ascertain whether Safari

users were also signed into Google and that, as a result of this code, tracking cookies could be
placed on a Safari user’s browser.
18.

Within the past year, Plaintiff has used his iPhone to visit the Google website and

has viewed ads on various websites, including Evite.com, TMZ.com, UrbanSpoon.com,
Kayak.com,

Wikipedia.org,

WebMD.com,

Drugs.com

CBSsports.com,

ESPN.com,

Dictionary.com, and Jsonline.com. Visiting these websites allowed Google’s tracking cookies to
be placed on Plaintiff’s device without appropriate authorization and allowed Google to obtain,
again without appropriate authorization, information pertaining to the websites that Plaintiff
visited.
19.

It has been reported that Google has begun to disable the concerned code after

being contacted by The Wall Street Journal.
Class Action Allegations
20.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and, additionally, pursuant to Rule

23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class of all persons throughout the
United States whose iPhone, iPad, Mac, or other device had Safari web browser installed on it,
which was subjected to the Google code that circumvented Safari’s third-party cookie blocking
feature and placed tracking cookies on their device(s).
21.

Excluded from the Class is Defendant; any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of

Defendant; any entity in which Defendant has or had a controlling interest, or which Defendant
otherwise controls or controlled; and any officer, director, employee, legal representative,
predecessor, successor, or assignee of Defendant.
22.

This action satisfies the requirements for class certification: numerosity,

commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority.

4

23.

This action has the requisite numerosity. The Safari web browser is installed on

millions of devices and millions of Safari-users have viewed Google Ads. Thus, the Class
consists of millions of persons, and is therefore so numerous that joinder of all members,
whether otherwise required or permitted, is impracticable.
24.

There are questions of law or fact common to the Class that predominate over any

questions affecting only individual members, including, among others:
a)

Whether Google code in Google Ads circumvents Safari’s third-party
cookie blocking feature;

b)

Whether the concerned Google code allows tracking cookies to be placed
on Plaintiff’s and Class members’ devices;

c)

Whether Google collects the browsing history of Plaintiff and Class
members through the concerned Google code and tracking cookies;

e)

Whether Google’s conduct is a violation of the Federal Wiretap Act;

f)

Whether Google’s conduct is a violation of the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act;

g)

Whether Google’s conduct is a violation of the Stored Electronic
Communications Act;

h)

Whether members of the Class have sustained damages and other
compensable losses and, if so, the proper measure thereof; and

i)

Whether Class members are entitled to statutory damages and other relief
under the federal statutes referenced herein.

25.

The claims asserted by Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the members of the

Class because they are similarly affected by the Google code.
26.

Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class, and Plaintiff

has retained attorneys experienced in class and complex litigation.
27.

Predominance and superiority exist here for at least the following reasons:

5

a)

Absent a class action, Class members, as a practical matter, will be unable
to obtain redress for Defendant’s illegal conduct;

b)

It would be a substantial hardship for individual members of the Class if
they were forced to prosecute individual actions;

c)

When the liability of Defendant has been adjudicated, the Court will be
able to determine the claims of all members of the Class;

d)

A class action will permit an orderly and expeditious administration of
Class claims, foster economies of time, effort, and expense, and ensure
uniformity of decisions;

e)

The lawsuit presents no difficulties that would impede its management by
the Court as a class action;

f)

Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to Class members,
making class-wide relief appropriate; and

g)

The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class
would create a risk of incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant
and of inconsistent or varying adjudications for all parties.
COUNT I
FEDERAL WIRETAP ACT

28.

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the paragraphs above,

as if fully set forth herein.
29.

Under the Federal Wiretap Act, it is unlawful for any person to “intentionally

intercept[], endeavor[] to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to
intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication.” 18 U.S.C. §2511 (a).
30.

The Act also makes it unlawful for any person to disclose or use the contents of

any electronic communication “knowing or having reason to know that the information was
obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this
subsection.” 18 U.S.C. §2511 (c) and (d).
6

31.

By placing code in Google Ads that circumvented Safari’s third-party cookie

blocking feature, which allowed tracking cookies to be placed on Plaintiff’s and Class members’
devices, Google intentionally intercepted Plaintiff’s and Class members’ electronic
communications and then used the communications, as the cookies track the users’ browsing
history.
32.

Statutory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation costs

reasonably incurred, and other appropriate relief is available in a civil action for any person
whose electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of
the Act. 18 U.S.C. § 2520(b). The Court may assess statutory damages of “whichever is the
greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000.” 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)(B).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment against Defendant as
follows:
A.

Certifying the proposed Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and

appointing Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record to represent the Class;
B.

Finding that Defendant has violated the Federal Wiretap Act, as alleged herein;

C.

Awarding Plaintiff and Class members statutory damages, punitive damages, and

other appropriate relief against Defendant in an amount to be determined at trial;
D.

Awarding Plaintiff and Class members the reasonable costs and expenses of suit,

including attorneys’ fees; and
E.

Granting additional legal or equitable relief as this Court may find just and proper.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT

33.

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the paragraphs above,

as if fully set forth herein.
34.

Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq., “the term

‘computer’ means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data
7

processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data
storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with
such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable
hand held calculator, or other similar device[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1).
35.

Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, “the term ‘protected computer’ means

a computer – . . . (B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or
communication . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2).
36.

Plaintiff’s iPhone falls within the definition of a protected computer, as it is used

in interstate commerce or communication.
37.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act makes it unlawful to intentionally access a

computer without authorization, or to exceed authorized access, and thereby obtain information
from any protected computer. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C).
38.

The “term ‘exceeds authorized access’ means to access a computer with

authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the
accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter[.]”18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(6).
39.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act also makes it unlawful to intentionally access

a computer without authorization and, as a result of such conduct, cause damage and loss. 18
U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C).
40.

The “term ‘damage’ means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data,

a program, a system, or information[.]”18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(8).
41.

The “term ‘loss’ means any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of

responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program,
system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or
other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service[.]”18 U.S.C. §
1030(e)(11).

8

42.

Plaintiff and members of the Class have suffered loss and economic damage as a

result of Google’s tracking cookies, which allowed Google to access their web browsing activity
that Google was not entitled to obtain.
43.

A civil action may be brought by any person who suffers damage or loss by

reason of a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, provided that the conduct involves
one of four factors set forth in subsection (c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act.
44.

The aggregated loss to Plaintiff and members of the Class during the previous

year exceeds $5,000 in value. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment against Defendant as
follows:
A.

Certifying the proposed Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and

appointing Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record to represent the Class;
B.

Finding that Defendant has violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as

alleged herein;
C.

Awarding Plaintiff and Class members economic damages as provided for under

the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and other appropriate relief against Defendant in an amount
to be determined at trial;
D.

Awarding Plaintiff and Class members the reasonable costs and expenses of suit,

including attorneys’ fees; and
E.

Granting additional legal or equitable relief as this Court may find just and proper.

COUNT III
VIOLATION OF THE STORED ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS ACT
45.

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the paragraphs above,

as if fully set forth herein.
46.

The Stored Electronic Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., makes it

unlawful to intentionally access, without authorization or by exceeding authorization, a facility
9

through which an electronic communication service is provided, and thereby obtain, alter, or
prevent authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage
in such system. 18 U.S.C. § 2701(a)(1)-(2).
47.

Any person aggrieved by any violation of the Stored Electronics Communications

Act, in which the conduct constituting the violation is engaged in with a knowing or intentional
state of mind, may recover from that entity appropriate relief, including:
(1) such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be
appropriate;
(2) damages under subsection (c); and
(3) a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
18 U.S.C. § 2707(b).
48.

Subsection (c) of the statute further provides that:
The court may assess as damages in a civil action under this section the
sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made
by the violator as a result of the violation, but in no case shall a person
entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000. If the violation is
willful or intentional, the court may assess punitive damages. In the case
of a successful action to enforce liability under this section, the court may
assess the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorney fees
determined by the court.

18 U.S.C. § 2707(c).
49.

Through its Google Ads and tracking cookies, Defendant intentionally accessed,

without authorization or by exceeding its authorization, Plaintiff’s and Class members’
computers and smartphones and obtained the users’ online browsing activity while it was in
electronic storage.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment against Defendant as
follows:

10

A.

Certifying the proposed Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and

appointing Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record to represent the Class;
B.

Finding that Defendant has violated the Stored Electronic Communications Act,

as alleged herein;
C.

Awarding Plaintiff and Class members actual damages, Defendant’s profits, or the

statutory minimum of $1,000 per person, as provided for under the Stored Electronic
Communications Act, and punitive damages and any other appropriate relief against Defendant
in an amount to be determined at trial;
D.

Awarding Plaintiff and Class members the reasonable costs and expenses of suit,

including attorneys’ fees; and
E.

Granting additional legal or equitable relief as this Court may find just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
Dated: March 19, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
_/s/ Corey Mather_________________
One of the attorneys for Plaintiff
Guri Ademi (SBN 1021729)
Shpetim Ademi (SBN 1026793)
David J Syrios (SBN 1045779)
Corey Mather (SBN 1046210)
ADEMI & O’REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

11