When\u00a0personal information is collected, often\u00a0from\u00a0multiple internet based sources, then combined and shared or sold to marketing companies,\u00a0 should those who\u00a0personal information is the subject of the sale be paid.\u00a0 This question was raised by a group of\u00a0plaintiffs in Northern California, looking for compensation from Google for the use and\u00a0reuse of their personal information for profit.\u00a0\u00a0U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal, dismissed the claims that\u00a0Google’s privacy policy, allowing personal information from more than one source be combined, caused injury to the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
In his dismissal, Judge Grewal stated “Plaintiffs’ allegations certainly plead that Google made money using information about them for which they were provided no compensation beyond free access to Google’s services. But an allegation that Google profited is not enough equivalent to an allegation that such profiteering deprived plaintiffs of economic value from that same information.”<\/p>\n
The practice of combining personal information from multiple sources, added to Google\u2019s Privacy Policy and terms and conditions, implemented in March 2012, has come under heavy fire recently. Courts in Germany and the Netherlands have both cited this as a violation of data protection laws and Google is subject to significant fines and penalties. In this class action lawsuit, Google\u2019s users, in addition to claiming Google\u2019s policy of combining personal information obtained through various sources violated their privacy rights, also claimed misappropriation of likeness, violations of the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act and California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law.<\/p>\n
Although this case was dismissed, it raises an important question about whether marketing companies will need to offer compensation in addition to free use of a particular service in order to collect, combine and use personal information of their users. Google, for example, provides a number of services that are \u201cfree\u201d to the user, provided the user agrees to their privacy policy and terms and conditions, which include the user\u2019s consent to combine and share personal information across many platforms. Yet, without collecting revenue from its users, Google still makes substantial profits in part because it is able to sell advertisements that can be more carefully targeted on the users based on their personal information.<\/p>\n
Marketing companies using panelists who are surveyed for opinions ranging from new products, use of existing products and various services, pay the panelists for completing surveys. Albeit the compensation is minimal, but the model might prove important in the future to avoid similar legal claims. Marketing companies might want to consider compensation ranging from free services to coupons or tokens for future purchases, to entice consumers to provide unrestricted use of personal information. This dismissal will not stop future litigants from raising the same issues, since it is possible that\u00a0 future litigants will have more success.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
When\u00a0personal information is collected, often\u00a0from\u00a0multiple internet based sources, then combined and shared or sold to marketing companies,\u00a0 should those who\u00a0personal information is the subject of the sale be paid.\u00a0 This question was raised by a group of\u00a0plaintiffs in Northern California, looking for compensation from Google for the use and\u00a0reuse of their personal information for profit.\u00a0\u00a0U.S. … Continue reading Should Marketing Companies Pay for the Right to Use Personal Information?<\/span>