Texarkana, Texas — Global search and advertising giant Google is facing a class action lawsuit after a Texas resident on Wednesday lodged a complaint against Google claiming that the search engine leader’s Gmail service snooped on his emails in order to sell and place advertisements on account holder’s user screens, violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.
Attorneys representing Keith Dunbar of Bowie County, Texas, claims that the search engine giant had skimmed information he had sent from a non-Gmail service to Gmail users by Google algorithms without his consent in order to sell targeted advertising, claiming Google’s tactics breached the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.
Keith Dunbar, individually and as representative on behalf of all similar situated persons, filed suit against Google Inc. on Nov. 17 in the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division.
The algorithms are formulated to serve Gmail users targeted ads based on the content of messages they receive. The complaint objects to Google’s automated e-mail scans and delivery of advertisements without compensating e-mail senders.
“Google intercepts and uses the information from non-Gmail account holders without regard to the privacy or proprietary nature of the information,” the lawsuit alleged.
“No permission from non-Gmail account holders is obtained prior to Google utilizing the content of non-Gmail account holders for the purpose of publishing targeted ads and other related information to Gmail account holders,” the complaint, filed in US District court in Texarkana, Texas, stated.
Moreover, “Google does not inform non-Gmail account holders that it scans the content of their emails for the purpose of delivering targeted text ads and other related information to Gmail account holders.” “As result of Google’s actions intercepting non-Gmail account holders’ e-mail, Google receives a monetary benefit without the consent of the Class members and without compensation to them.”
The lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue more frequently noted for patent infringement complaints. The complaint is seeking class-action status so other non-Gmail users may also join the action. It seeks damages of $100 a day for each violation or $10,000, whichever is greater, and the disgorgement of profits made by Google as a result of the Gmail scanning.
“We have not received a formal complaint and cannot comment on specifics,” a Google spokesperson said in an e-mailed statement. “To be clear though, Gmail — like most Web mail providers — uses automatic scanning to fight against spam and viruses. We use similar technology to show advertisements that help keep our services free. This is how Gmail has always worked.”
This is not a new claim and is not likely to trouble Google’s legal department much. Eric Goldman, associate professor of law at Santa Clara University School of Law, characterizes the complaint as an “are-you-kidding-me? lawsuit” on his blog.
“The topic was exhaustively debated when Gmail first publicly launched in 2004,” said Goldman in an e-mail. “There were numerous calls on government agencies to investigate Google, and Cal. Sen. Figueroa proposed anti-Gmail legislation in the California legislature. Frankly, after all the furor died down a half-decade ago, I had assumed everyone had moved on long ago.”
Google pre-emptively addressed the issues raised in the complaint in its Gmail privacy policy. Among other things, it states in bold letters:
“Using Gmail does not violate the privacy of senders since no one other than the recipient is allowed to read their email messages, and no one but the recipient sees targeted ads and related information.”
The policy further continues by stating Google believes that delivering relevant advertising offers more value and users will see text ads and links to related pages that are related to their messages.
The proposed class is represented by Sean F. Rommel and James C. Wyly of Wyly Rommel in Texarkana, Chris Travis and Drake Mann of Gill Elrod Ragon Owen & Sherman in Little Rock, Ark., and M. Chad Trammel of The Trammell Law Firm in Texarkana, Ark.
U.S. District Judge David Folsom is assigned to the case.
Case No. 5:10-cv-00194