Google misled consumers about the collection and use of location data

> The Court ruled that when consumers created a new Google Account during the initial set-up process of their Android device, Google misrepresented that the ‘Location History’ setting was the only Google Account setting that affected whether Google collected, kept or used personally identifiable data about their location. In fact, another Google Account setting titled ‘Web & App Activity’ also enabled Google to collect, store and use personally identifiable location data when it was turned on, and that setting was turned on by default.

> The Court also found that when consumers later accessed the ‘Location History’ setting on their Android device during the same time period to turn that setting off, they were also misled because Google did not inform them that by leaving the ‘Web & App Activity’ setting switched on, Google would continue to collect, store and use their personally identifiable location data.

My worry is we end up w a situation such as cookie notices - users have gotten so used to clicking through content screens they don’t pay attention anymore because a lot of it is meaningless

Other thing is why even publish materials like this and what's the point of such commissions if they are toothless?

Isn't that a massive waste of tax payer money?

In many countries government creates various commissions to be able to give family members and associates well paid bogus jobs or pay for favours (if you vote for X, we will give a job to your wife's sister) and so on. Other reason is also to tick boxes - when asked by unscripted journalist about something, they can say look we care about this, we setup a commission...

The ACCC is an independent authority empowered to enforce Australian Consumer Law (ACL) which contains consumer protection, completion product safety, anti-trust (competition) and other adjacent laws. It is most similar to the Federal Trade Commission in the US.

The ACCC leadership are commissioners who are appointed based on input of federal and state governments. The appointments tend to be "non-partisan" with the current chair leading the organization for 10 years (with 3 term renewals under multiple governments).

The ACCC has been taking action against Google since mid 2000s. The last case against Google that they won was in relation to consumers being misled about what were advertisements vs native results. [1]

The main provision of law protecting Australian consumers that is invoked in these cases is s18 of Australian consumer law that states: "A person [or entity] must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive."

Laws with this wording have existed in Australia since the the 1970s.

This law is enforced widely and there are also state agencies that enforce similar laws. All kinds of industries have received enforcement action ranging from retailers to supplement providers. As far as i know it's one of the but most broadly enforced consumer protection laws in any country.

The ACCC won a case against Apple under this same law in 2018 for misleading consumers about their warranty rights after third party repairs were done. Apple was fined $9 million dollars.

The action against Apple included 254 complaints from customers impacted. You can literally call or email the ACCC to log a complaint about any business and it will use this complaints to identify patterns of misconduct thst then enforce enforcement priorities.

The ACL currently limits penalties to $10 million per contravention for corporations. Only parliament can increase thst limit amending legislation. Individuals can also be fiend up to $5million.

Litigation is typically the last resort, and businesses have many oppurtunities to resolve or settle the matter. I am not in any way privy to this case, but typically a remediation action the ACCC seeks is notifying and posting notices that it engaged in misleading conduct, sometimes with a way for the consumer to seek a remedy. It's likely Google was not willing to do this without a fight.

Individuals and businesses can also privately take action if they were misled or deceived.

The Australian Court system that enforced this law is also relatively non-partisan. The australian government and judicial system was formed relatively recently - in the late 1800s and there was a strong intention to prevent political patronage in tbe public service and court system. [2]

Australian Consumer law also has other specific protections that i like such as requiring businesses to make the price the consumer has to pay most prominent (as opposed to making the price exclusive of taxes and fees most prominent).

The ACCC has just under 1000 employees and a small team would have worked on this case with support from outside lawyers. Congrats to them and hopefully this will encourage Google and other vendors to be more thoughtful about their data collection opt-ins.

[1] https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/google.html

[2] https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart...

pecuniary penalties differ from fines and depending on where they are taxable could be a deduction :/