Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Google LLC (No 2)

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission brought an action against Google LLC and Google Australia Pty Ltd (GAPL) in the Federal Court, alleging contraventions of sections 18, 29 and 33 or 34 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by Google LLC and sections 18 and 29 by GGPL. The Commission claimed that Google LLC misled certain users of mobile devices into thinking that with the Location History setting "off" and Web & App Activity setting "on", Google LLC would not obtain, retain and use personal data about a user’s location. The case involved consideration of users setting up a Google Account, users wanting to turn Location History "off", and users considering whether to turn Web & App Activity "off". The Commission also alleged that GGPL contravened sections 18 and 29 of the ACL by passing on the representations made by Google LLC.
The court had to decide whether Google LLC and GGPL contravened sections 18, 29 and 33 or 34 of the ACL. In particular, the court had to consider whether Google LLC misled certain users of mobile devices into thinking that with the Location History setting "off" and Web & App Activity setting "on", Google LLC would not obtain, retain and use personal data about a user’s location. The court also had to consider whether GGPL contravened sections 18 and 29 of the ACL by passing on the representations made by Google LLC.
The court found that Google LLC contravened sections 18, 29 and 33 or 34 of the ACL and GGPL contravened sections 18 and 29 of the ACL. The court found that Google LLC misled certain users of mobile devices into thinking that with the Location History setting "off" and Web & App Activity setting "on", Google LLC would not obtain, retain and use personal data about a user’s location. The court also found that GGPL contravened sections 18 and 29 of the ACL by passing on the representations made by Google LLC. The court made an order that the parties confer with a view to providing within 14 days agreed orders reflecting the conclusions reached by the Court and appropriate further steps.
Limited parts of these reasons for judgment have been redacted to give effect to non-publication orders made on 4 and 10 December 2020.