SAN JOSE, CA – A lawsuit filed in California accuses Google of systematically collecting sensitive user data from its Android operating system, even when users have followed the company’s instructions to disable tracking features.

• The Core Allegation – The lawsuit claims Google misleads users about their ability to control data collection, particularly location history and web activity, through a confusing and deceptive user interface.
• The “Off” Switch – Evidence cited in the suit suggests that even with the “Location History” setting turned off, some Google services continue to collect and store time-stamped location data without specific user consent.
• The Data at Stake – The collected data allegedly includes detailed location points derived from Wi-Fi and cell tower signals, search history, and app usage, which can be compiled into detailed user profiles for targeted advertising.

The court filings present a detailed and technical argument, accusing the tech giant of creating a data collection framework that is difficult for the average user to understand, let alone escape. The case hinges not just on what data is collected, but on the transparency and clarity of the choices presented to billions of Android users.

What Do the Court Filings Actually Allege?

The central claim of the lawsuit is one of deception. The plaintiffs argue that Google has designed its Android privacy settings to be intentionally misleading. For instance, the suit alleges that pausing “Location History” gives users a false sense of security. While it may stop Google from creating a visible “Timeline” of a user’s movements, it does not stop the company from collecting location information through other settings, such as “Web & App Activity.”

According to the documents, this secondary setting is often enabled by default and saves a user’s activity on Google sites and apps, which can include location data inferred from IP addresses, Wi-Fi networks, and GPS. What does this mean for a user who believes they have opted out? The suit contends it means their location is still being logged, just in a different, less obvious part of their Google Account. The lawsuit further alleges that pressure was applied internally within Google to keep these settings confusing, fearing that clear disclosures would negatively impact advertising revenue.

How Is This Data Reportedly Collected?

The technical methods of collection are a key part of the lawsuit’s evidence. The filings describe a system where Android devices constantly collect location information from multiple sources, not just GPS. These include cell tower triangulation, the strength and identity of nearby Wi-Fi networks, and even Bluetooth beacon signals. This data is allegedly transmitted to Google’s servers alongside other activity.

For example, simply opening the Google Maps app or performing a Google search for a local business can generate a location data point that is saved to a user’s account if “Web & App Activity” is enabled, regardless of the “Location History” status. The suit argues that bundling these disparate data collection practices under a vaguely named setting, without explicit and separate consent for location, violates privacy laws and consumer trust.

What is Google’s Position and What’s Next?

Google has consistently maintained that its tools provide users with robust controls over their data and that it is transparent about how that data is used. In response to similar past allegations, the company has stated that it has worked to make its location settings easier to understand and manage. A company spokesperson often points to the Google Account dashboard, where users can review and delete their activity data.

The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant consequences. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, Google could face substantial financial penalties. Perhaps more importantly, it could be compelled to redesign its privacy interface on Android to be more transparent and provide users with a clearer, more effective way to opt out of all forms of location tracking. The case will ultimately scrutinize the line between providing a personalized service and engaging in deceptive data collection.