Verified case 1 of 3
Google, LLC
- Date
- December 14, 2022
- Amount
- Three Hundred Ninety-One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($391,500,000.00) total; Maryland’s share: Eight Million, Six Hundred and Nineteen Thousand, Two Hundred and Twelve Dollars and Twenty Cents ($8,619,212.20)
- Legal basis
- Ala. Code § 8-19-1 et seq.; Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-88-101 et seq.; Arkansas Personal Information Protection Act §§ 4-110-101 et seq.; Col. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-101 et seq.; Col. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105(1); Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-110b et seq.; 6 Del. C. §§ 2511 et seq.; Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes; O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq.; Haw. Rev. Stat. Chpt. 481A; Haw. Rev. Stat. Sect. 480-2; Idaho Consumer Protection Act, title 48, chapter 6, Idaho Code; 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.; Iowa Code § 714.16; Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, K.S.A. § 50-623 et seq.; KRS 367.110-990 et seq.; La. R.S. §§ 51:1401 et seq.; Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, 5 M.R.S.A. § 205-A et seq.; Maryland Consumer Protection Act, §§ 13-101 through 13-501 (2013 Repl. Vol. and 2021 Supp.); Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A; Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.901 et seq.; Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 325D.43-.48; Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 325F.68-.694; Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-27(1)(g); Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Ch. 407, RSMo; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1601 et seq.; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-301 et seq.; Nevada Deceptive Trade Practice Act, NRS 598.0903-.0999; New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq.; New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 57-12-1 to -26; NY Executive Law § 63(12); NY General Business Law §§ 349 and 350; North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 et seq.; N.D.C.C. § 51-15-01 et seq.; Ohio R.C. 13145.01 et seq.; Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, 15 O.S. §§ 751 et seq.; Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, ORS 646.605-646.656; Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq.; South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 39-5-10 et seq.; South Dakota Codified Laws Chapter 37-24; Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-18-101 to -134; Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, Utah Code § 13-11-1 et seq.; 9 V.S.A. chapter 63 et seq.; Virginia Consumer Protection Act, Va. Code Ann. §§ 59.1-196 to 59.1-207; Wis. Stat. § 100.18; Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-402; Maryland Personal Information Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 14-3501 through 14-3508; common-law claims concerning unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent trade practices
Why the action was brought
The Attorneys General alleged that Google collected, retained, and used users’ location information through Location History and Web & App Activity while misrepresenting that disabling Location History or other account settings stopped collection. They also alleged concealed collection from signed-out users and continued location-based advertising after Ads Personalization was disabled, confusing users and impairing privacy control.