Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 16 JUNE 2021

Judgment in Google location tracking case sends warning to businesses

Stacks Law Firm
Explore more from Stacks Law Firm

This case demonstrates that data collection policies must adhere to consumer laws on misleading and deceptive conduct.

AustraliaConsumer Protection
Geoff Baldwin
Geoff Baldwin
Author LinkedIn connections

A significant court win against Google, concerning misleading online privacy statements about location tracking, sends a strong message to businesses - be careful not to mislead customers or risk facing huge fines.

The case was brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) alleging Google misled some Android users on how to disable personal location tracking on their phones. (See Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Google LLC (No 2) [2021] FCA 367.)

Important victory for consumers

In what the ACCC hailed as a world first, the Federal Court found Google had misled customers about privacy and the use of location tracking data that it collected through Android mobile devices.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

When “Down Down” Wasn’t Really Down - Federal Court Rules Against Coles

In its judgement delivered on 14 May 2026, the Federal Court has found that Coles engaged in misleading conduct in relation to its long-running “Down Down” promotion, accepting the ACCC’s case that many advertised discounts were not genuine. The Court held that 13 of the 14 sample “Down Down” tickets examined in the hearing conveyed false or misleading price discount representations because the stated “was” price had not applied for a reasonable period before the promotion.
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Article

The Scope Of A School’s Duty Of Care Revisited

An 11-year-old student suffered a back injury during a long jump trial at a school athletics carnival, leading to a significant Court of Appeal decision that clarifies schools' duty of care obligations. The case examines whether basic safety measures like adequate sand depth and regular pit maintenance constitute reasonable precautions that schools must take to protect students during sporting activities.
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Carroll & O'Dea
Carroll & O'Dea