Tag: Lawsuit

Company Check – HP’s Toner-Blocking Settlement

Posted on by Paul Stradling

HP has (quietly) settled a class action lawsuit over claims it deliberately blocked customers from using third-party toner cartridges in its printers, without paying a penny in damages.

Locking Out Third-Party Toner

The lawsuit centred on HP’s controversial Dynamic Security feature, i.e. software designed to detect and reject toner cartridges not produced by HP itself. The system, enabled through automatic firmware updates, left some users unable to print at all if they’d chosen cheaper, third-party alternatives.

The lead plaintiffs included Mobile Emergency Housing Corp (MEHC), a US-based organisation providing emergency shelter services, and Performance Automotive, a car parts business. Both reported that HP printers they had purchased in good faith suddenly stopped accepting non-HP toner after a firmware update was remotely triggered. For example:

– MEHC said it had bought an HP Color LaserJet Pro M254 in 2019 and opted for third-party toner in 2020 to cut costs. The following month, a firmware update rendered the cartridges useless.

– Performance Automotive said it had a similar experience with its HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M281fdw after installing an update that blocked non-HP supplies.

A Profitable Strategy?

It seems that HP hasn’t denied the existence of Dynamic Security. In fact, it appears to have defended the system openly. For example, speaking back at the 2024 World Economic Forum in Davos, CEO Enrique Lores highlighted how HP’s business model depends on profits from consumables, not hardware, saying: “We lose money on the hardware, we make money on the supplies,” and that, “we’re investing in that customer every time a printer is sold.”

The fact that in FY2024, HP’s printing division generated $4.5 billion in net revenue, much of it from proprietary ink and toner sales, appears to support this idea.

Lores has also argued that Dynamic Security helps protect customers from potential security threats, claiming third-party cartridges could, in theory, carry malicious firmware. However, such risks remain hypothetical and there’s little evidence of this happening in real-world scenarios.

Settlement Without Liability

Rather than fight the lawsuit in court, HP has now agreed to settle without admitting wrongdoing. Under the terms, the company will continue to disclose that its printers may block third-party cartridges and has pledged to allow customers the choice to install or decline firmware updates containing Dynamic Security.

“HP denies that it did anything wrong,” the official settlement notice states, “but agrees to maintain certain disclosures and options regarding firmware updates.”

While it appears that no compensation will be paid, the agreement marks another chapter in HP’s ongoing efforts to defend its closed ecosystem, even as it comes under increasing scrutiny from customers and regulators alike.

The Growing Backlash Against Lock-In

Unfortunately for HP, this issue isn’t likely to go away. Many customers see the lockout as an unfair restriction, especially when third-party cartridges can cost a fraction of the price. On forums and social media, frustrated users have voiced concerns about being forced into costly purchases with little warning or transparency.

For businesses that rely on predictable print costs, these kinds of restrictions can have real operational impacts. For example:

– Disruption risk. Sudden firmware changes can halt printing workflows, causing downtime for organisations.

– Cost inflation. HP-branded toner is often significantly more expensive, impacting budgets for schools, small businesses, and non-profits.

– Reduced trust. Customers may question whether HP prioritises their interests, or simply its bottom line.

HP’s Not The Only One

It’s worth noting here, however, that HP’s not alone in exploring this kind of supply-chain lock-in. Other printer makers, including Canon and Epson, have also been accused of using software to prevent third-party cartridges from functioning.

However, HP has become one of the most visible examples, perhaps because it’s also one of the most vocal. With lawsuits, user complaints, and increasing regulatory scrutiny in both the US and EU, it seems that efforts to tightly control consumables may be backfiring.

A 2023 report by the European Commission warned that such tactics could breach consumer rights, and several EU countries are now pushing for regulations guaranteeing “the right to repair” and “freedom of choice” for printer supplies.

HP, meanwhile, remains firm on its stance, offering its own cartridge recycling programmes and claiming that its proprietary ecosystem is ultimately more sustainable and secure.

That said, for many customers, particularly in sectors where budgets are tight, that argument is proving increasingly hard to justify.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

HP’s settlement may avoid an outright legal defeat but is likely to leave lingering concerns for businesses that rely on its printers. The company’s willingness to restrict functionality through remote updates (especially without warning) appears to raise serious questions about control, transparency, and long-term value.

While HP has pledged to give users the choice over future firmware updates, the incident highlights the risks of buying into ecosystems that can be altered unilaterally. For small businesses, charities, schools, and other organisations with tight margins, the ability to use affordable third-party toner isn’t just a preference but is a necessity.

It’s also a warning sign for procurement teams, i.e. printer selection should no longer be just about hardware specs or upfront cost. It’s about understanding how restrictive the vendor’s software policies are, and what support (or surprises) may lie ahead.

If anything, this case shows how vendors are doubling down on closed-loop business models. Companies may want to reassess whether HP’s approach aligns with their operational and financial priorities, or if a more open, flexible printing solution would be the smarter investment.

As printer manufacturers continue to balance profit protection with customer satisfaction, the pressure is on to prove that these digital lock-ins serve users as well as shareholders.

Featured Article : Google in Monumental Monopoly Ruling

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Four years on from Google being sued by the US Department of Justice over its control of about 90 per cent of the online search market, a US judge has ruled that Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly on its online search and the associated advertising.

Building and Defending a Search Monopoly 

Following a ten-week trial, in a 277-page opinion, US District Judge Amit Mehta, said: “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.” Following this landmark ruling, the judge laid out his reasons for finding Google guilty of violating antitrust laws through building and defending a monopoly. He highlighted how Google had spent spending billions of dollars to secure exclusive agreements with developers, carriers, and equipment makers to be the default search engine. For example, the judge said Google had done this using:

– Exclusive agreements. Google spent billions of dollars to secure agreements with phone/device manufacturers, carriers, and browser developers to make Google the default search engine on various platforms. As the judge put it, “The default is extremely valuable real estate. Because many users simply stick to searching with the default, Google receives billions of queries every day through those access points.” Underlying this is the basic assertion by the judge that if Google search were not the default (which it paid to be), or there was another search engine as the default, users would not end up using Google.

– These deals by Google effectively locked-out competitors (with much smaller budgets) from gaining market share in the search engine industry. For example, Google paid billions of dollars annually to Apple, Samsung, Mozilla, and others (typically paying a massive £7.8bn a year) to be pre-installed as the default search engine across platforms (see below).

– Pre-Installation on devices. Google ensured that its search engine was pre-installed and set as the default on a wide array of devices, including mobile phones, through agreements that required manufacturers to do so in exchange for access to the Google Play Store and other Google services. This strategy helped to reinforce Google’s dominant position by making it very difficult for consumers to switch to alternative search engines, thereby shutting out competitors and limiting choice.

– Restricting competitors. The judge’s ruling also highlighted how Google restricted competitors from gaining traction, i.e. by preventing other search engines from being easily accessible or discoverable on devices that carried Google as the default option. These tactics were seen as deliberately designed to suppress competition.

– Manipulating market outcomes. Judge Mehta also pointed out that Google’s extensive financial resources and strategic partnerships enabled it to manipulate market outcomes in its favour, thereby further entrenching its monopoly power. The judge argued that by maintaining control over key distribution channels, Google was able to secure and sustain its dominance in the market.

Dominance 

The level of dominance Google has achieved is made clear at the beginning of the Judge’s ruling statement where he highlighted how Google’s dominance has gone unchallenged for well over a decade. For example, the statement highlights how, in 2009, “80 per cent of all search queries in the United States already went through Google” and by 2020, “it was nearly 90 per cent, and even higher on mobile devices at almost 95 per cent”. The statement also illustrated the gulf between Google and its competitors, saying “The second-place search engine, Microsoft’s Bing, sees roughly 6 per cent of all search queries—84 per cent fewer than Google”. 

Money Spent On Agreements Vs Finacial Return 

The recent case has exposed how Google maintained its monopoly by spending billions on exclusive agreements to be the default search engine on devices and browsers but did so because the returns from its search advertising would be so much greater.

For example, the payments it made included both direct deals with companies like Apple and revenue-sharing arrangements that incentivised partners to prioritise Google over others. The financial return for Google came through its highly profitable search advertising model. In short, by ensuring it was the default option, Google maximised the volume of searches conducted on its platform, leading to a vast number of ad impressions and clicks (seeing and clicking on the ads shown on its search engine results pages.

The revenues from search advertising significantly outweighed the costs of these agreements, making this strategy extremely profitable for Google. This was a key aspect of the judge’s reasoning, illustrating how Google’s investments in maintaining its monopoly paid off financially.

Search Innovation Has Suffered 

In ruling that Google acted to build a monopoly to the point that “There is no genuine ‘competition for the contract.’ Google has no true competitor”, the judge also highlighted how this situation may have affected the evolution of search. For example, the judge made the point “The distribution agreements have caused a third key anticompetitive effect: They have reduced the incentive to invest and innovate in search.” 

Win For The People? 

The US Justice Department, which brought the case against Google, was clearly happy that the outcome was not just a victory for its Antitrust Division, but as Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said: “This victory against Google is an historic win for the American people”. Mr Garland also made the point that “No company – no matter how large or influential – is above the law” and that “This landmark decision holds Google accountable. It paves the path for innovation for generations to come and protects access to information for all Americans.” 

Defence 

Some of the key arguments put forward by Google’s lawyers in its defence centered around:

– Google’s innovation and competition. For example, Google emphasised that it faces significant competition from other tech companies including Amazon and TikTok, which serve different user needs. They argued that the company’s success is due to its continuous innovation and improvements in search quality, i.e. making it legitimately the best search engine, not simply anticompetitive behavior.

– Consumer benefits. It was also argued that the agreements Google made to be the default search engine actually benefited consumers by providing a superior search experience. They argued that these practices led to better products and services for users.

– Lawful agreements. The defence contended that the agreements Google secured with device manufacturers and other partners were lawful business practices, common in competitive markets. They insisted that these contracts were not designed to stifle competition but were part of standard industry practices.

It’s worth noting also that even the judge appeared to acknowledge at least Google’s efforts over the years to reach its dominant position, saying: “Google has not achieved market dominance by happenstance. It has hired thousands of highly skilled engineers, innovated consistently, and made shrewd business decisions. The result is the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users.” 

Structural Relief 

The outcome of the judge’s ruling that Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly on its online search is that it could pave the way for ‘structural’ remedies in the future, i.e. ‘structural relief’, especially if Google’s anticompetitive practices are not curbed through other means.

In antitrust law, structural relief essentially refers to remedies that involve altering the structure of a company to restore competitive conditions in a market. This could, for example, include breaking up a company into smaller entities, divesting certain business units, or making changes to the company’s ownership or operations to reduce its market power. It should be noted, however, that Judge Amit Mehta, did not immediately mandate such measures in this case.

What Now? 

Google is, of course, expected to appeal the ruling. The legal process has already taken several years, and the appeal is likely to extend the case further.  However, following the ruling, what structural relief could actually mean for Google and its Search could include:

– Breaking Up Google as we know it. This most extreme option could involve splitting Google into separate entities, such as divesting the search engine from other services like Android and YouTube.

– Ending default agreements. Google may be prevented from paying companies like Apple to be the default search engine, possibly encouraging the development of rival search engines.

– Introducing user choice screens. One interesting idea is that users may end up being presented with a choice of search engines when setting up devices.

These changes could impact both Google’s market dominance and user experience, although significant shifts like this (and the appeal) are likely to take quite some time.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

This monumental ruling against Google appears to mark a pivotal moment not just for the tech giant but for the entire digital ecosystem. For Google, the immediate future involves navigating legal appeals while potentially reassessing its business strategies that have long hinged on securing default positions across devices and platforms. Should structural remedies be enforced, Google’s operations could undergo significant transformations, possibly leading to a more fragmented corporate structure and altering how its services are integrated across products.

For competitors, this ruling could open a gateway to previously inaccessible markets. For example, search engines like Microsoft’s Bing, DuckDuckGo and other emerging players may now stand a chance to gain traction, especially if default agreements are dismantled. This could invigorate innovation in search technologies, offering diverse experiences and features that cater to varied user preferences. The potential for increased competition might also drive down advertising costs, presenting new opportunities for businesses to diversify their digital marketing strategies.

Companies that had agreements with Google, such as device manufacturers and browser developers, may now find themselves at a crossroads. The lucrative deals that once ensured Google’s default presence could be scrutinised or prohibited, compelling these companies to reevaluate their partnerships and possibly explore collaborations with alternative search providers. This shift could foster a more competitive bidding environment, benefiting these companies through diversified revenue streams and partnerships.

The market, in response, may now be poised for a renaissance of competition and innovation. The dismantling of monopolistic practices may lead to a more leveled playing field, perhaps encouraging the emergence of niche search services tailored to specific industries or user needs. This diversification could stimulate advancements in search algorithms, user interfaces, and integration with other digital services.

For businesses that rely heavily on search engine marketing, this ruling could have far-reaching implications. As the dominance of Google faces potential dilution, companies may need to adapt their SEM strategies to account for a broader array of platforms. This could mean diversifying ad spend across multiple search engines, learning to navigate different advertising ecosystems, and potentially even adjusting key performance indicators (KPIs) as new competitors enter the market.

The potential increase in competition among search engines might lead to more competitive advertising rates, which could be advantageous for businesses looking to optimise their SEM budgets. However, this could also introduce complexity, requiring businesses to manage and optimise campaigns across several platforms rather than focusing solely on Google. The need for specialised knowledge in multiple search engine algorithms and advertising models will likely increase, necessitating further investment in digital marketing expertise.

Tech News : Adobe Lawsuit : Customer Cancellation Concerns

Posted on by Paul Stradling

The US Justice Department, together with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), are suing Adobe Inc. (and two Adobe executives) over an alleged hidden “Early Termination Fee” and an alleged overly complex subscription-cancellation process.

Hiding Important Information 

In the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, it’s alleged that Adobe Inc systematically violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) using fine print and inconspicuous hyperlinks to hide important information about Adobe’s subscription plans.

Using An Early Termination Fee As A Retention Tool? 

Allegedly, these violations include a significant “Early Termination Fee” that customers may be charged when they cancel their subscriptions, which Adobe may have profited from. The complainant says that this may amount to misleading Adobe’s consumers about the true costs of a subscription and “ambushing” them with the fee when they try to cancel, i.e. using the fee as a powerful retention tool.

Deterred From Cancellation By The Complexity Of The Process? 

The Justice Department / FTC complaint alleges that Adobe has also been violating ROSCA by not providing consumers with a simple mechanism to cancel their recurring, online subscriptions. Instead, it’s alleged, Adobe protects its subscription revenues by “thwarting subscribers’ attempts to cancel” and by “subjecting them to a convoluted and inefficient cancellation process filled with unnecessary steps, delays, unsolicited offers, and warnings”. It’s alleged, therefore, that the complexity of the cancellation process appears to be used to deter customers from cancelling (another retention tool).

Trapping Customers 

The Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, Samuel Levine, summed up the complaint against Adobe, saying “Adobe trapped customers into year-long subscriptions through hidden early termination fees and numerous cancellation hurdles,” and that “Americans are tired of companies hiding the ball during subscription signup and then putting up roadblocks when they try to cancel”. 

Responsibility 

U.S. Attorney Ismail J. Ramsey for the Northern District of California highlighted how “Companies that sell goods and services on the internet have a responsibility to clearly and prominently disclose material information to consumers”.  He added that “It is essential that companies meet that responsibility to ensure a healthy and fair marketplace for all participants.  Those that fail to do so, and instead take advantage of consumers’ confusion and vulnerability for their own profit, will be held accountable.” 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton (head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division) also highlighted the importance of stopping “companies and their executives from preying on consumers who sign up for online subscriptions by hiding key terms and making cancellation an obstacle course”. 

What Does Adobe Say? 

In a statement on Adobe’s website, in answer to the allegations in the lawsuit, Adobe’s general counsel and chief trust officer Dana Rao denies the FTC’s claims and says Adobe will contest the charges in court.

Mr Rao says: “Subscription services are convenient, flexible and cost effective to allow users to choose the plan that best fits their needs, timeline and budget. Our priority is to always ensure our customers have a positive experience. We are transparent with the terms and conditions of our subscription agreements and have a simple cancellation process. We will refute the FTC’s claims in court.” 

Penalties 

The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of consumer redress and monetary civil penalties from the defendants, as well as a permanent injunction to prohibit them from engaging in future violations.

Not The Only Ones 

Adobe is, of course, not the only big tech company to have attracted the attention of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in recent times. For example, earlier this month, the FTC filed a lawsuit against Amazon for allegedly enrolling customers in its Prime subscription service without their consent and making it difficult to cancel the subscription. The FTC accused Amazon of using “dark patterns” to mislead customers and hinder their attempts to unsubscribe easily

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The lawsuit against Adobe should be an important reminder for businesses about the importance of transparency and simplicity in subscription services. The allegations against Adobe highlight the potential risks and legal repercussions of not clearly disclosing all terms and conditions associated with subscription plans. UK businesses offering similar services must ensure that all subscription-related fees, particularly early termination fees, are clearly communicated to customers upfront to avoid misleading them.

The complexity of the cancellation process is another significant issue raised in the Adobe case. Businesses must create a straightforward and user-friendly cancellation process. Any attempt to complicate this process could be viewed as a strategy to retain customers unfairly, which could lead to legal challenges. Also, ensuring that customers can easily unsubscribe from services not only builds trust but also complies with consumer protection laws.

The involvement of two high-level executives in the Adobe lawsuit (David Wadhwani and Maninder Sawhney) highlights the accountability at all levels of an organisation. Business leaders should, therefore, be vigilant and ensure their company’s practices are transparent and compliant with regulations. This includes regularly reviewing and updating terms of service and cancellation policies to meet legal standards and customer expectations.

For UK businesses, this case also signals the increasing scrutiny from regulatory bodies worldwide, including the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which has similar oversight on consumer rights and business practices. Staying informed about both local and international regulations and aligning business practices accordingly can prevent potential legal issues.

The Adobe lawsuit, therefore, illustrates the crucial need for businesses to be transparent, honest, and straightforward in their dealings with customers. By adopting clear communication, simplifying processes, and ensuring compliance, UK businesses can foster better customer relationships and avoid costly legal disputes.

Featured Article : A Big Stink About Ink

Posted on by Paul Stradling

After trying to dismiss a lawsuit from HP customers angry at a firmware update (meaning that their HP printers wouldn’t work with third-party ink cartridges), we look at how HP is answering the arguments within the antitrust ink cartridge lawsuit and what the implications could be for customers.

The Lawsuit

Back in January, printing premier HP was sued in a Federal court in Chicago by 11 consumers (a class action lawsuit) who claimed that their HP printers wouldn’t accept replacement ink cartridges made by other manufacturers, thereby forcing them to pay artificially high prices for HP-branded cartridges. The lawsuit accused HP of violating US and state antitrust laws in a bid to monopolise the market for replacement ink.

The plaintiffs allege that they weren’t told that automatic software updates (firmware updates between late 2022 and early 2023) from HP would disable some printers unless HP-branded ink was used and that faced with non-functional printers, they were then forced to purchase more expensive HP-branded ink that they would not otherwise have purchased.

Damages

The plaintiffs, in this case, are seeking damages of greater than $5 million from HP, which include the cost of their useless third-party cartridges (the ones that won’t work in their printers because of the firmware update) as well as an injunction to disable the part of the firmware updates that prevent the usage of third-party ink.

Trying To Get IT Dismissed

HP’s lawyers recently attempted to have all 79 causes of action in the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that the central premise of the Plaintiffs’ case was wrong, i.e. that HP failed to disclose to consumers that their printers were equipped with “dynamic security” measures designed to prevent the use of third-party printer cartridges that copy HP’s security chips, thereby locking them into an aftermarket where they were overcharged.

HP argued that it goes to great lengths to disclose that its printers are intended to work only with cartridges that “have an HP chip, and that they may not work with third-party cartridges that do not have an HP chip.” HP also argued that “this information is displayed in clear terms on the printer box, on HP’s website, and in many other materials.” It also highlighted that “many third-party cartridges are not affected by dynamic security. HP does not block cartridges that reuse HP security chips, and there are many such options available for sale. Nor does HP conceal its use of dynamic security.”

HP’s lawyers additionally argued that the plaintiffs also didn’t allege that they didn’t authorise firmware updates in their printers and that many plaintiffs also claim that they purchased HP-branded ink cartridges after receiving the software or firmware updates, and that their printers began to again function properly.

In short, HP’s lawyers attempted to find a long list of reasons to have the lawsuit dismissed.

Previously

These types of allegations against HP have gone on for some time now. For example, back in 2019, HP agreed to resolve related consumer claims in a California case, for a $1.5 million payment, without admitting any wrongdoing (as part of the settlement). However, just last year (in California) a judge said that HP must at least face some claims that it designed some all-in-one printers to stop scanning and faxing when the machine was low on ink, thereby forcing consumers to buy cartridges.

The Backdrop

All these antitrust printing arguments are taking place at a time when HP has been through a long period of shrinking revenues, mainly due to enterprise customers affected by the uncertain economic environment, holding off on their hardware purchases a bit longer.

Instant In Subscription & All-in-One service

Following a strategy re-think, two solutions that HP has devised to help it through these difficult times are its ‘Instant Ink’ services and its All-in-One service, both of which see it focusing on a subscription model going forward.

HP’s Instant Ink service is a subscription-based model that is beneficial for users who want to avoid the inconvenience of running out of ink and dealing with last-minute replacements. It also helps in managing printing costs more predictably. With Instant Ink (for a monthly fee, on an agreed plan), the HP printer’s ability to monitor ink levels means that before users’ ink runs low, HP sends replacement cartridges directly to the doorstep. HP claimed to have 13 million sign-ups to the service back in the beginning of March.

As the name suggests, The All-in-One service, which launched in the US last month, includes not just the ink but hardware as well, i.e. the HP Envy or HP OfficeJet models. This is also a two-year subscription contract, based on a printed page plan, with cancellation fees (to raise the barriers to exit).

In addition to trying to reduce its costs, HP’s CEO, Enrique Lores, speaking recently at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media and Telecom conference outlined HP’s strategy since the 2019 rethink as trying to “protect supplies revenue by upping subscription services, selling hardware loaded with ink, smart models, and charging more for printers when a customer isn’t committing to HP ink.”

AI Apps Too

HP is also hoping that AI will boost PC sales and has indicated that alongside its PCs, it’s developing new AI applications to run on top of its installed base of more than 200 million commercial devices.

Printing Declining Anyway

Despite HP’s court battles over printer ink and its move to a subscription-based model, for many businesses, the need (and demand) for printers and ink has declined in recent years. This has been due to factors like the greater proliferation of digital tools and technologies, advancements in cloud computing and software-as-a-service (SaaS) platforms and businesses are moving towards greener practices (despite printer companies trying to produce more sustainable/greener ink). Also, the need to reduce costs has favoured digital storage over printed documents, alongside a disruption in global supply chains (e.g. for paper), plus the effects of the pandemic also meant a lowering of demand for printers and ink.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Having to constantly renew expensive ink cartridges or running out of ink at the wrong time have long been a significant cost and source of frustration to many businesses. In recent years, however, many businesses, for many of the reasons above, have updated to becoming more reliant on the cloud and digital solutions rather than printed documents. HP itself has had to change its strategy in 2019, moving customers to a subscription model for its ink and hardware in order to weather difficult economic times and falling demand.

This court case around HP’s attempt to curtail consumers’ adoption of cheaper third-party ink cartridges in favour of more expensive HP ones is likely to be unwelcome and reputationally damaging for HP at a time where it needs to protect its position in the marketplace. For competitors, HP’s dominance being challenged is good news and could provide a beneficial commercial outcome for them if events go the wrong way for HP.

For business customers who still need a printer, the ability to have trouble-free operation with their printers and to be able to benefit from the choice of using different, lower-priced print cartridge alternatives are likely to be valuable. Most of us will understand the frustration that printer ink problems can cause.

Looking ahead for HP, its cost-cutting and its shift to a subscription model for its ink/printer products, plus the promise of developing AI apps for its large installed base of commercial devices are ways it hopes to turn around the declining revenues of challenges of recent years. The company has a trusted business brand and the hope for HP is that their valuable brand won’t be tarnished too much by the outcome of the lawsuit that’s currently making the headlines.

Featured Article : Google Deleting Millions Of Users’ Incognito Data

Posted on by Paul Stradling

As part of a deal to resolve a class action lawsuit in the US dating back to 2020, Google has said it will delete the incognito mode search data of millions of users.

What Lawsuit? 

In June 2020 in the US, three Californians named Chasom Brown, Christopher Castillo, and Monique Trujill (along with William Byatt of Florida and Jeremy Davis of Arkansas) brought a lawsuit against Google’s Incognito mode. They filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and potentially millions of other Google users who believed their data was being collected by Google despite using Incognito mode for private browsing.

The plaintiffs accused Google of capturing data despite assurances that it would not, thereby misleading users about the privacy level provided by Incognito mode. For example, internal Google emails highlighted by the lawsuit appeared to show that users using incognito mode were actually being tracked by Google to measure web traffic and sell ads.

The original lawsuit was seeking at least $5 billion in damages from Google.

What’s Been Happening? 

Since the lawsuit was originally filed, some of the main events of note between the plaintiffs and Google have included:

– Google attempting to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing that it never promised complete privacy or non-collection of data in Incognito mode. At the time, Google pointed to the disclaimers presented to users when opening an Incognito tab, which stated that activity might still be visible to websites, web services, and employers or schools.

– A judge then rejected Google’s request to dismiss the case. The judge emphasised that Google didn’t explicitly inform users that it would collect data in the manner alleged by the plaintiffs. This decision meant that the lawsuit could again move forward.

– Finally, back in December last year, with the scheduled trial due to begin in February 2024, the lawyers for Google and the plaintiffs announced that a preliminary settlement had been reached, i.e. Google had agreed to settle the class-action lawsuit. In doing so, Google acknowledged that it needed to address the plaintiffs’ concerns (but without admitting wrongdoing).

– In January, however, following the preliminary settlement announcement, Google updated its disclosures, clarifying that it still tracked user data even when users opted to search privately or used its “Incognito” setting.

– Google also said it was trialling a new feature that could automatically block third-party cookies (to prevent user activity being tracked) for all Google Chrome users and had made the block automatic for Incognito just after the lawsuit was filed. It’s also understood that as part of the settlement deal, this automatic block feature will stay in place for 5 years.

Mass Deletions 

Under the terms of the final settlement, the full details of which are not publicly known, Google has agreed to delete hundreds of billions of the private browsing data records that it collected (with incognito).

Google Says…

A Google spokesperson has been quoted as saying that the company was pleased to settle the lawsuit which it “always believed was meritless” and that it is “happy to delete old technical data that was never associated with an individual and was never used for any form of personalisation”. 

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

This agreement came after extensive legal battles and discussions, which in themselves highlight the complexities surrounding user privacy and data collection practices in the digital age. Part of the complexity in the case appeared to be trying to decide whether, as the plaintiffs’ lawyers argued, Google was misleading users and violating privacy and wiretapping laws or, as Google’s lawyers said, Incognito mode was designed to allow users to browse without saving activity to their local device but not to entirely prevent Google or other services from tracking user activities online.

Google has consistently denied wrongdoing and maintained its stance. However, Google (and its parent company Alphabet) are already facing two other potentially painful monopoly cases brought by the US federal government and had to pay £318m in 2022 in settlement of claims brought by US states over it allegedly tracking the location of users who’d had opted out of location services on their devices. It’s not surprising, therefore, that Google has opted to settle in this most recently concluded case although, in addition to having to delete hundreds of billions of browsing records, there are no public details yet of what else it’s cost.

The settlement, therefore, will be seen by many as a victory in terms of forcing dominant technology companies to be more honest in their representations to users about how they collect and employ user data. For big tech companies such as Google, privacy and tracking have become a difficult area. Google had already moved to free itself from other volatile privacy matters around browsing by announcing back in 2020 that it would be looking to eliminate third-party cookies within two years anyway (which has been delayed) and cookies have been subject to greater regulation in recent years.

This latest settlement is bad news for Google (and advertisers) however it is likely to be good news for the many millions of Google Chrome users whose interests were represented in the class-action lawsuit.