Three US states plus Washington DC sue Google for using UI design 'dark patterns' to harvest your location

Position of data permission controls designed to deceive, trio of lawsuits claim


The Attorneys General of Indiana, Texas, Washington state, and Washington DC on Monday each filed lawsuits against Google alleging that the search giant uses deceptive user interface designs known as "dark patterns" to obtain customer location data without adequate consent.

"We're leading a bipartisan group of AGs from Texas, Indiana, [and] Washington, each suing in state court to hold Google accountable," said Karl Racine, Attorney General of Washington DC, in a statement via Twitter. "We're seeking to stop Google’s illegal use of 'dark patterns' [and] claw back profits made from location data."

Dark patterns is a term for describing user interface design that is intended to produce a specific response, such as making the button to consent to data sharing more visually appealing than the button to reject it. They can be realized by incorporating manipulative digital design elements into webpages and app interfaces to steer behavior through the use of colors, button placement, screen layout, text labeling, and so on. They can be thought of as the visual and interactive equivalent of "push polling," which is the careful wording of survey questions to elicit a preferred response.

Long a source of concern among digital rights advocates, governments have recently started trying to curtail the use of dark patterns. California last year amended the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) to ban the use of dark patterns that deter people from opting out from having their personal data sold.

The US Federal Trade Commission last year adopted a new enforcement policy to discourage the use of dark patterns. Europe's Digital Services Act (DSA), expected to take effect next year, gained a dark pattern ban last week. Last month, a bipartisan group of US lawmakers re-introduced the Deceptive Experiences to Online Users Reduction (DETOUR) Act, a bill that tried to ban large online platforms from using dark patterns in 2020 but was never voted upon.

These latest lawsuits against Google contend that because location data is critical to Google's advertising business, the company has a financial incentive to discourage users from withholding access to location data.

"Google has employed and continues to employ a number of deceptive and unfair practices to obtain users’ 'consent' to be tracked and to make it nearly impossible for users to stop Google from collecting their location data," the lawsuit filed against Google in Washington DC states [PDF].

"These practices include privacy-intrusive default location settings, hard-to-find location settings, misleading descriptions of location settings, repeated nudging to enable location settings, and incomplete disclosures of Google’s location data collection and processing."

The Texas lawsuit [PDF], filed by Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is also involved in a multistate antitrust complaint against Google's ad business, suggests Google's location data controls in its apps and webpages are illusory.

"In fact, Google’s claims to give users 'control' and to respect their 'choice' largely serve to obscure the reality that, regardless of the settings users select, Google is likely still hard at work collecting, storing, and monetizing the very location data users seek to keep private."

The Indiana lawsuit [PDF], filed by Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita, cites examples of alleged dark patterns, such as "privacy-intrusive default location settings, hard-to-find location settings, misleading descriptions of location settings, repeated nudging to enable location settings, and incomplete disclosures of Google’s location data collection and processing."

All the complaints rely upon a 2018 Associated Press report that found Google tracks the locations of Android and iPhone users whether they grant location tracking permission or refuse it. Each covers practices dating back to 2014 and includes multiple redacted passages.

Short-term solution to a legal issue

Jonathan Mayer, assistant professor of computer science and public affairs at Princeton University, welcomed the legal challenge over the use of dark patterns but also expressed concern that existing laws may not be well suited to deal with them.

"I'm glad AGs are taking on dark patterns," he said via Twitter. "But this litigation also highlights the challenge of squeezing dark patterns into current consumer protection law. It’s difficult to articulate problems of choice architecture manipulation through 'deception' and 'unfairness' authorities."

Google, which on Friday accused AG Paxton of grandstanding and filed a motion to have the Texas-led antitrust complaint against its ad business dismissed, also pushed back against this latest trio of lawsuits.

"The Attorneys General are bringing a case based on inaccurate claims and outdated assertions about our settings," said Google spokesperson José Castañeda told The Register. "We have always built privacy features into our products and provided robust controls for location data. We will vigorously defend ourselves and set the record straight."

Google's statement included summaries of various improvements made to the location data settings of Google applications in recent years, with the stipulation that these passages be paraphrased rather than quoted directly. The implication is the AGs' claims have at least in part been addressed through recent product updates.

If Google has in fact undone some or all of the alleged dark patterns, the courts hearing these cases still need to sort out whether Google benefited from unlawfully coerced location data during some past period of time and whether the AGs are entitled to claw back location-based ad profits during this period. ®

Editor's note: This article was updated to include Washington state.

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • Google has more reasons why it doesn't like antitrust law that affects Google
    It'll ruin Gmail, claims web ads giant

    Google has a fresh list of reasons why it opposes tech antitrust legislation making its way through Congress but, like others who've expressed discontent, the ad giant's complaints leave out mention of portions of the proposed law that address said gripes.

    The law bill in question is S.2992, the Senate version of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA), which is closer than ever to getting votes in the House and Senate, which could see it advanced to President Biden's desk.

    AICOA prohibits tech companies above a certain size from favoring their own products and services over their competitors. It applies to businesses considered "critical trading partners," meaning the company controls access to a platform through which business users reach their customers. Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta in one way or another seemingly fall under the scope of this US legislation. 

    Continue reading
  • Brave Search leaves beta, offers Goggles for filtering, personalizing results
    Freedom or echo chamber?

    Brave Software, maker of a privacy-oriented browser, on Wednesday said its surging search service has exited beta testing while its Goggles search personalization system has entered beta testing.

    Brave Search, which debuted a year ago, has received 2.5 billion search queries since then, apparently, and based on current monthly totals is expected to handle twice as many over the next year. The search service is available in the Brave browser and in other browsers by visiting search.brave.com.

    "Since launching one year ago, Brave Search has prioritized independence and innovation in order to give users the privacy they deserve," wrote Josep Pujol, chief of search at Brave. "The web is changing, and our incredible growth shows that there is demand for a new player that puts users first."

    Continue reading
  • Abortion rights: US senators seek ban on sale of health location data
    With Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v Wade, privacy is key

    A group of senators wants to make it illegal for data brokers to sell sensitive location and health information of individuals' medical treatment.

    A bill filed this week by five senators, led by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), comes in anticipation the Supreme Court's upcoming ruling that could overturn the 49-year-old Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing access to abortion for women in the US.

    The worry is that if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade – as is anticipated following the leak in May of a majority draft ruling authored by Justice Samuel Alito – such sensitive data can be used against women.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022