And not a single penny will be paid to affected parties.
As it is true that very little of settlements or awards like this will be paid out to affected users, I’d like to see legislation amended so that a large percentage of the sum has to be used for major privacy education campaigns, pushed online & through every other media, created and overseen by robust privacy organisations.
In a case like this, I’d want to compel Google to target users of Incognito Mode with privacy education material - again created & overseen by privacy orgs.
Last thing Google wants is to be compelled to show slick, unskippable privacy education clips on every Youtube video.
So, I assume this lawsuit happened because people still don’t have a clue as to what incognito mode actually is?
Don’t get me wrong here, it’s a misleading name that should be accompanied by some explanation for the user, so… Does Chrome not inform you about what incognito mode does?
It probably does, but users would have to click through to an information page. Mostly people seemed to be using it based on misinformed recommendations from others.
Also got the impression that most believed the sites they were using via Incognito mode could not recognise them unless they logged in. Similar features on other browsers had similarly misleading names.
“session mode” might be a less misleading term, but it isn’t nearly so snappy.
Google would happily pay twice that to stay away from sanctions.
“How much do you want to let us keep stealing information and spying on people? We’ll pay it.”
