Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
In Re: Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation
Case Number:
1:12-md-02358
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Multi Party Litigation:
Class Action, Multi-district Litigation
Judge:
Firms
- Ademi & O'Reilly
- Andersen Sleater
- Barnow & Associates
- Bartimus Frickleton
- Coffman Law Firm
- DiCello Levitt
- Eichen Crutchlow
- Fish & Richardson
- Guin Stokes
- Hamilton Lincoln
- Jacover Law
- Krislov Law
- Mayer Brown
- Meyerkord & Meyerkord
- Milberg Coleman
- Morgan & Morgan
- Morris Nichols
- R. Champ Crocker LLC
- Richards Layton
- Rigrodsky Law
- Sidley Austin
- Strange LLP
- The Terrell Law Group
- Tycko & Zavareei
- Wilson Sonsini
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
May 29, 2013
Google, Advertisers Can't Duck Privacy Claims, Users Say
The plaintiffs in Delaware multidistrict litigation alleging two online advertisers joined Google Inc. in a scheme to bypass Apple Inc.'s Safari browser privacy settings pushed back against dismissal bids Wednesday, arguing they had sufficiently pled violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
-
May 02, 2013
Online Ad Cos. Call Cookies 'Harmless' In Google Privacy MDL
Two online advertising companies moved Wednesday to dismiss a Delaware multidistrict litigation alleging they joined Google Inc. in a scheme to bypass Apple Inc.'s Safari browser privacy settings, arguing that tracking cookies are both harmless and beneficial to Web functionality.
-
April 29, 2013
Google Says Alleged Cookie Tracking Gathered No New Info
Google Inc. on Friday moved to dismiss a Delaware multidistrict litigation claiming it deceptively planted tracking cookies on Apple Inc.'s Safari browser, saying the plaintiffs can't show injury because the harvested data would have been sent to Google either way.
-
January 23, 2013
Google Moves To Boot Safari Secret Tracking MDL
Google Inc. told a Delaware federal judge Tuesday that a multidistrict litigation accusing it of deceptively placing tracking cookies on Apple Inc.'s Safari browser should be dismissed because the plaintiffs were not harmed by the practice and therefore lacked standing.
- ← Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next →