Class Action
Calhoun v. Google
Calhoun v. Google LLC
Where it stands
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted Google summary judgment on consent grounds; the Ninth Circuit reversed on August 20, 2024 (113 F.4th 1141), holding the district court applied the wrong framework and that a reasonable-person standard governs consent, remanding for trial. On remand, Judge Gonzalez Rogers denied class certification on June 10, 2025, and plaintiffs sought further review of that denial.
Key ruling
Calhoun v. Google, LLC, 113 F.4th 1141 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2024) — consent in privacy class actions is measured by what a reasonable user would have understood from the disclosures actually presented, not by generalized 'browser agnosticism' industry norms.
Note on this record
Post-June 2025 procedural posture (outcome of the renewed class certification effort) could not be verified beyond the reported denial and plaintiffs' request for reconsideration.The record
- Court
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Ninth Circuit on appeal)
- Case number
- 4:20-cv-05146-YGR (N.D. Cal.); No. 22-16993 (9th Cir.)
- Filed
- Filing date not established
- Defendants
- Google LLC
- Plaintiffs
- Chrome browser users nationwide who did not enable Chrome Sync and whose personal browsing data Google nonetheless collected, contrary to Chrome's Privacy Notice.
- Technology at issue
- Google Chrome browser; Google Analytics and Ad Manager code on third-party sites
- Relief sought
- Damages and restitution for data collected in breach of Chrome's privacy promises; CIPA claims carry $5,000-per-violation statutory damages.
- Counsel of record
- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP · DiCello Levitt LLP · Simmons Hanly Conroy · Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
Claims pleaded
Sources (3)
- Calhoun v. Google LLC, No. 22-16993 (9th Cir. 2024)Justia · 2024-08-20
- Calhoun et al. v. Google LLC — case pageBleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP
- Judge rejects class action for Google privacy lawsuitReuters (via U.S. News) · 2025-06-10
This page describes a publicly filed case. This site is not counsel on this matter, nothing here is legal advice, and the allegations described are allegations unless a court has said otherwise.