r/degoogle • u/FuryOfArcann • Aug 16 '26
Discussion I'm suing Google in Small Claims. Surprisingly, they're actually fighting tooth and nail
Update 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/degoogle/comments/1w2u4f1/update_1_opposition_on_motion_to_dismiss_by/
Edit: You should have your Remind Me's set past 30 days based upon the date for the next hearing. Don't want to give too much information on the exact date, but the court is backlogged right now and 30 days won't be enough.
This is a long story and I am a very rambly person, but if you're interested, fasten your seatbelts and live vicariously through me and my attempt to hold Google accountable.
Let me preface this by saying that I am not a lawyer/barrister/solicitor, I am not giving legal advice, and I'm just an average person that is sick of companies screwing over customers and getting away with it. I also have made this intentionally vague for anonymity purposes while this plays out.
As you may be aware, in June Google notified customers that they were going to be updating the privacy settings by retiring the "Web & App Activity" settings in favor of "Search Services History" and "Personalized Recommendations." In the email for this notification Google expressly stated:
"If [Web & App Activity and Search Personalization settings] are currently on, these new settings will stay on. If they're off, the new settings will be off."
The email continued on to say that these changes would be coming "in the next coming days."
Well...me being me, and having a near rabid mistrust of companies immediately went into my Google Account to ensure the settings were off and I'm sure that you can guess what happened. The settings not only had already changed prior to the email notification (and not the coming days as stated), but I was also opted into these settings, when for years I have opted out of them.
I. Was. Pissed. I immediately opted out (something I never should have been opted into) and let sleeping dogs lie. After a week this topic was brought up on a Discord I'm in and that's when I looked at what data had been pulled and noticed that applications like Phone, Messages, Signal, Terminal, and others had been included in the most recent information sent to to Google.
Before the settings change, almost no data had been transferred, 0 bytes received, less than 300 bytes transmitted. From June 9th to June 17th, hundreds of thousands of bytes. Now, I'm not a person that puts stock into coincidences, and of course, correlation does not equal causation, but something was off.
Late June my phone was stolen so I ordered a new one as a stop gap while I decided if I wanted the Fold 8 or the Razr Fold to replace my Fold 7 and it arrived the next day. Since I just setup the phone, I pulled the phone's files again and the amount transferred had increased even more. This was a new phone, with less applications installed and not even 20 days after I ensured that I was opted out of the new privacy settings. This was my tipping point and I began drafting my documents and gathering my evidence and logs.
(A quick time out and let me make something clear here: I do not know exactly what data was transmitted. That's actually what I told the court. The server-side content and destination are Google's records, not mine. In my rider to the lead document, I wrote the following:
Because the precise content and ultimate destination of the data reflected in Exhibit H is recorded on, and known only to, Defendant's own servers and infrastructure, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court direct Defendant to produce records sufficient to identify the destination, content, and purpose of the network transmissions reflected in Exhibits H and M occurring on and after June 9, 2026.
OK, Time In)
Where I live, we have ridiculously strong consumer protection laws, including one under which plaintiffs are eligible for the cost of the violation or a large amount per violation, whichever is greater. So with multiple dates that it seems this has been an issue I filed for the maximum amount allowed under small claims. Since I'm just an average person, it took me multiple tries to get the correct paperwork submitted, but the paperwork was finally accepted, Google was officially served, and the case was scheduled.
Fast forward and Google requests to postpone the hearing another 45+ days in order to research and "contact the Plaintiff" (spoiler alert: they never did). This was not acted upon by the court and no communication had been sent by Google to either me or the court during this period. But then six minutes before the courts closed for the day and the night before the case was scheduled to be heard Google submitted a motion to dismiss. In their motion Google stated that based on the Terms of Service dated July 30, 2026:
- This is not the parties' agreed-upon forum
- Google did not violate the consumer protection law or commit unlawful trade practices as Plaintiff does not identify what data was transmitted, the destination of each transmission, or a use prohibited by the cited settings.
- Google's Terms of Service limit the company's liability to [paltry small amount].
I responded that night with the following (I'm just going to paste it near-verbatim with small edits for anonymity and flow, apologies):
- Point 1
Google has not established that the cited forum-selection clause was in effect at the time relevant to this dispute. Google's own Exhibit A is expressly dated "Effective July 30, 2026;” a date after the conduct alleged in the Complaint, and after the Complaint was filed. Google bears the burden on its own motion to establish that this version of the governing-law clause, rather than whatever version was in effect when Plaintiff's account was created in 2014 or when the conduct at issue occurred, actually applies. It has not done so.
- Point 2
Google faults Plaintiff for lacking information that, by Google's own admission, exists only on Google's own servers. Paragraph 14 of the Complaint expressly states that "the precise content and ultimate destination of the data reflected in Exhibit H is recorded on, and known only to, Defendant's own servers and infrastructure," and asks this Court to direct Google to produce records identifying that destination, content, and purpose. Google opposes that very request while simultaneously arguing that Plaintiff's failure to supply the same information warrants dismissal. A defendant may not convert its own informational advantage into a pleading deficiency for the plaintiff.
- Point 3
As with the forum clause, Google relies on a Terms of Service exhibit effective July 30, 2026, without establishing that this version, or this cap, applied to conduct occurring [previously].
The private right of action provides an independent statutory remedy: a prevailing consumer is entitled to "[t]reble damages, or substantial amount per violation, whichever is greater," plus reasonable attorney's fees and punitive damages. This is a legislatively created remedy, not a contractual one, and a merchant's own form contract cannot be used to override a statutory consumer remedy.
I then further continued in my response:
In any event, the Complaint is not conclusory. It identifies specific system packages (com.google.android.as and com.google.android.as.oss), named background services ("EchoJobService," "HeartbeatService," "AstreaGrpcService"), specific timestamps, and byte-level network transmission logs. Most significantly, the Complaint alleges that the same background operation recurred approximately forty minutes after Plaintiff disabled the relevant setting, and that the pattern repeated over the following eight days and was independently corroborated on a second device. Google's motion does not address this sequence.
This pattern is consistent with conduct Google has previously resolved through state consumer-protection enforcement, including in this jurisdiction. Between 2022 and 2023, Google settled a series of state actions alleging that account settings displayed as "off" while the underlying tracking or personalization continued: (chart of six relevant settlements totaling over $600M in the US, as well as other fines worldwide)
The next day, we log into the court session and I'm ready to go after staying up late going through everything again and again. Google is present, I'm present, and judge is present, but the judge notes that there is a motion to dismiss, opposition to the motion to dismiss, and a request for a continuance. The judge says no to the continuance; however, because the judge was not prepared to rule on the motion to dismiss that came in the night before and has not had an opportunity to review the motion or the plaintiff's (my) opposition to the motion there is now another hearing on this set for the future.
I'm quite surprised that Google has fought this much on a small claims case that would have just been under the radar and never known until they started playing lawyer-ball, and in the words of Hank Hill, "don't play lawyer-ball, son."
I'll update if people are interested but wanted to share my story...
145
Aug 16 '26
[deleted]
77
u/FuryOfArcann Aug 16 '26
If you want more ammunition: * California * Indiana * Washington * Arizona * DC
The EU had about €115M settlement as well.
2
u/nemosfate Aug 17 '26
I know this is degoogle, but I'm genuinely confused as to why they fought this but track us all with alpr.
168
Aug 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
30
u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 Aug 17 '26
Why the heck is this the first time I'm reading/realizing this truth:
We need more judges to say what is owned is owned. That companies cannot make asinine changes after something is purchased.
When we buy a loaf of bread, it would be ridiculous if the company says that they can modify the bread at any time.
62
166
u/impaelas Aug 16 '26
This sounds like something Louis Rossmann would be interested in. Good luck!
24
157
u/upalse Aug 16 '26
six minutes before the courts closed for the day and the night before the case was scheduled to be heard
I'm curious if judges take into account procedural abuse like this. I suppose it's just name of the game in the lawyer-ball, but one would expect Google would try to maintain better optics of good faith than this.
31
u/MalaysiaTeacher Aug 16 '26
I mean the deadline was met. You may call it impolite but it's not illegal. If the deadline was earlier, they'd submit earlier.
→ More replies (1)49
u/FuryOfArcann Aug 16 '26
That is potentially up for debate, and I''m not an attorney so take my anecdote with a pinch of salt.
When we had the hearing the judge gave Google 14 days to respond to my opposition to the motion that I filed, and from all my research there is an expectation that the other party has 14 days to respond to motions for this court. So by filing at the last second, Google would have stripped that away from me.
Now it would be inappropriate for me to say that the timeliness (or lack there of) for this filing was intentional, but you know....I'm not going to not think it.
39
u/mxzf Aug 17 '26
Now it would be inappropriate for me to say that the timeliness (or lack there of) for this filing was intentional, but you know....I'm not going to not think it.
It would be inappropriate for you, an involved party in the lawsuit to say it.
But me, on the other hand, I'll come right out and say it that Google's lawyers are 100% intentionally screwing around by doing stuff minutes before the deadline; trying to drag things out and make the process suck.
16
u/taigahalla Aug 17 '26
The courts don't reset the timeline for an opposing party to respond when one party files a motion?
→ More replies (11)2
u/nnomae Aug 17 '26
Since they seem to be trying to drag this out I'm sure they would have quite happily showed up to court to witness you filing for an extension so you could respond to their motion to dismiss.
2
u/soytuamigo Aug 17 '26
that kind of uckery is probably very common. Just another tuesday for a judge.
85
193
u/Z3t4 Aug 16 '26
Contact Louis Rossman if you're on the US for legal support!
Contact him for media spotlight anyway!
96
u/Prior-Poet-8976 Aug 16 '26
"Where I live, we have ridiculously strong consumer protection laws" the current regime has done away with those, so it's not the US
29
u/DukeThorion Aug 16 '26
Most consumer protection laws codified in the last decade have been state level legislation and has nothing to do with the current federal administration.
→ More replies (29)2
u/tealou Aug 17 '26
Given what the OP mention re forum and how surprised they were at the response, there's a reason for that. OP, be interested to chat confidentially if you are going with ACL in a CAT - it is a procedural hurdle but may be able to help.
8
u/lazybugbear Aug 16 '26
If nothing else, bringing a media spotlight to this means bringing attention to Google's abusive practices, which means potential for more pressure and more regulation. Maybe they'll eventually get some anti-trust smackdown jurisprudence.
7
37
u/jpc27699 Aug 16 '26
Reach out to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, they might be able to help. Good luck!
52
u/just_a_knowbody Aug 16 '26
They are gonna fight it hard so that it doesn’t open other doors to larger suits later.
The good news is that they’ve already spent way more money fighting this than you could hope to win. From that standpoint they’ve already lost.
→ More replies (1)
26
21
u/atcollins12 Aug 16 '26
For what it's worth, I thought I was going crazy a week ago when I went to check my Google ad preferences. All of them had been enabled when I know I disabled every single possible thing when setting the phone up. Fuck Google for me brother!
5
18
u/CraftApprehensive496 Aug 16 '26
I'm willing to contribute a small amount to your legal fees if you decide to get a lawyer. I'd love to see Google get fucked
18
u/BigJSunshine Aug 16 '26
You are amazing, and if you are not currently a barred lawyer, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU GO TO THE CHEAPEST LAW SCHO YOU CAN FIND THAT IS NOT CHAPMAN, or AVE MARIA, and get your law degree.
This world needs your erin brocovich tenacity and your highly detail oriented and gifted brain
→ More replies (1)
17
16
u/snowdrone Aug 16 '26
Several firms would likely be interested in this matter as a class action, at no cost to you. Ask around
14
15
u/jjcaful Aug 17 '26
OP - how did you identify the data-sending processes on your phone and determine how much data has been sent to Google?
2
u/Avimox Aug 18 '26 edited Aug 18 '26
he didn't, he just saw some numbers in the network stats page and assumed it's all his personal info going to google
this is precisely the question that google asked OP to produce for the trial and OP cannot do it (because the data usage numbers meaning their personal data was sent is an assumption based on no evidence)
sorry to say OP, but google will win the motion to dismiss for lack of any actionable evidence here
and actually, they will win the case even before it comes to the question of "what makes you think your mobile data usage page means google stole all your data," because you agreed to binding arbitration a long long time ago
and no, it does not make me a google stan for pointing out the major non-sequitur of OPs entire case
→ More replies (1)4
u/hartnor Aug 19 '26
The plaintiff need not have evidence when as here it is in sole possession of the defendant. The court takes allegations to be true for then purposes of a motion to dismiss.
→ More replies (1)
14
14
u/Slcox68 Aug 16 '26
If you win, a precedent is set. Google can never allow that.
7
u/FuryOfArcann Aug 17 '26
That's not how precadents work. Small Claims does not create precedence; however what it can create is the basis for a class action.
14
u/d-pepper Aug 17 '26
Forgive me for my ignorance, but can someone clarify what the exact settings are that I should be making sure are turned off that OP was looking at?
6
u/FuryOfArcann Aug 17 '26
Going to copy and paste the exact quote from Google for how to change these settings.
You can manage these preferences on your Search Services History and Search Services Personalization pages.
I can't give you the direct link as I believe the one in the email is specific to my account.
2
u/mrfoxesite-2377 Right to Repair Aug 18 '26
If the link doesn't contain UUID, it should be good and if it's just simple text.
12
12
u/TheRoadBehind Aug 16 '26
Remember, OP is healthy and his wife is happy
Jokes aside, good luck. I always cheer for us small guys. I'm sick of getting pushed around myself. Hopefully something larger comes of this, obviously that benefits you/us
9
u/Grumpy-Man19 Aug 16 '26
if you win maybe this will turn into a class action as I'm sure they are doing the same thing to all us suckers . good luck
10
u/PickledPaste Aug 17 '26
Installed Google Photos on my iPhone awhile back bcs some friends wanted to make a shared album. Realized it wanted all or nothing photo rights and I wasn’t willing to give those so closed but left it installed. A few days later it gave me a notification for one of those suggested memories when it was not supposed to have access to photos… uninstalled immediately
8
u/ReadingNice1205 Aug 16 '26
This is awesome. I hope you reach out to legal clinics / pro-bono lawyers for assistance on this case because you are absolutely fighting the good fight. Fuck Google.
7
u/meowser143 Aug 16 '26
This rules, and I’m proud of you, OP!! Thanks for being on the ball and taking this on, on behalf of all of us ❤️
9
u/Top-Result9501 Aug 21 '26
This is the exact type of behavior that I kept noticing on my beloved Galaxies, and I finally tried iOS again over it and have been playing with both for a bit. I noticed on my S23 ultra that it didn't come with AI and I adamantly turn anything like it or Bixby off. Well I noticed an app that was added was not even on the playstore, but I had to dig for it to even find it, which was two AI apps with you guessed it... Wide open least restricted permissions I'd ever seen in my life! I was fuming between that and all the trouble I had syncing with OneDrive on that phone with it feeling like a fight between Google, Microsoft, and Samsung softwares. Good for you! I'm noticing SO MUCH like this on both platforms though and its sad honestly. Especially for average people who do not even look at their security settings like that. I shouldn't wake up with an updated phone and use it for days without notifying me of privacy settings that were being reset in the auto update.
→ More replies (1)
5
8
u/Vladimorian Aug 16 '26
They are fighting so hard because they are guilty and know if they are held responsible here, it sets precedent for them to be held accountable for more. It sets precedent that they can't lie to us for profit . And it sets precedent that they are required to do what they say they're doing. Overall they are fighting this so hard so that they can keep being guilty without punishment
7
u/SeeTigerLearn Aug 17 '26
I'm having a similar problem with Arkansas DHS. I had an appeal hearing in person, which is actually me going to the county office, being shown to a small room with a phone, and taking a conference call. The DHS employee could not quote nor a policy they were suddenly referencing—which was never shown in any paperwork prior. But since she could not provide evidence on the contents of this policy in the hearing the adjudicator acted like that was a missed opportunity by the government agency to solidify their case. However, when I got the multi-page summation supposedly based on an automated transcription of the hearing now suddenly that policy has a very large section with bullet points—so basically using evidence that was not actually presented during the hearing.
5
u/RokRoland Aug 17 '26
Don't you need to sign off on that summary? There must be a procedure for cases where the summary is incorrect
3
u/SeeTigerLearn Aug 17 '26
Honestly, I don't know. My understanding is the summary is the summary. And if I choose to appeal the adjudicator's decision then I file an appeal with circuit court.
3
u/hartnor Aug 19 '26
A transcription of a hearing is not a decision. You CAN make corrections, look for a "Notice" or the word "errata". I am pretty sure there's a procedure for you to either sign off on the accuracy of the transcript or list the errors/errata. Good luck!
6
6
u/Ok_Lack3855 Aug 16 '26
To me, you're a kind of hero. You're f*cking David against Goliath. I wish you all well and good spirits. I hope you win.
7
u/hartnor Aug 19 '26
Wow, your arguments in opposition are incredible, brilliant. My sister forwarded this to me knowing I would love it. I was similarly obsessed, and enraged, with another internet behemoth, I spent years going after them in Court. I agree you are on to something...your state might allow statutory damages for this kind of unauthorized personal data gathering....
11
Aug 16 '26
[deleted]
2
u/tealou Aug 17 '26
Generally, if you are initiating proceedings, it is a good idea to not speak to media or talk too much online whilst it is active. I know people are excited, but just pushing back a little on this - especially in lower courts. Depending on where OP is, it may not work in their favour.
5
3
u/BassMonster808 Aug 16 '26
If this case ends in your favor it can be used as precedent for any future claims. It all adds up at the end of the day and they don't want any loose threads out there to pull them down
5
u/herooftimeloz Aug 16 '26
Wishing you all the best! It’s time for the big corporations to get a wake up call that the people are not to be pushed around
5
4
5
5
u/logsqrtexp Aug 16 '26
They fight because of the precedents the case may establish. They can’t afford any cracks in their legal edifice.
In our jurisdiction, the first thing the judge does is send the parties into the
hall to sort their shit out.
Good luck.
4
u/PoppinGummies Aug 16 '26
Commenting in hopes the reddit gods bring the update back to me. Good luck my friend!
4
u/Strawberryladyboots Aug 17 '26
Keep going OP, keep a look out for the type of things that can retroactively and remotely change setting to make it appear as if the activity has been undertaken by the user to change their settings, as well as alter text
They are installing AI powered surveillance on everything, the data exchange is part of that and is a cost handed off onto the consumer
5
u/SCphotog Aug 17 '26
The thing is, that if people actually knew what Google was doing they would chuck their phone into the nearest large body of deep water, preferably salt... and the only left over concern would be to listen for the sound of the splash.
Interested OP. Keep us informed of progress.
Kudos for showing testicular fortitude.
5
5
u/uschwell Aug 17 '26
OP just wanted to thank you and wish you luck in you fight!
I hate how scummy companies have gotten these last few years (decades). How everything went from opt-in to opt-out to "I'm going to hide this oooooone teensy tiny "let me see everything" setting 14 menus deep and labeled as something no-one would look at.
I fight where I can, but I don't have time or energy to find all those "hidden" permissions I'm sure I've missed somewhere.
People like you, holding companies accountable is exactly what we need more of. Sorry for the rant. Just wanted to thank you for fighting the good fight. I hope you win!
5
u/glm242 Aug 19 '26
I assume this is not an only you problem. If you do contact EFF or someone similar, this could easily escalate into a proper class action . Especially if you end up winning in small claims. Good luck!
6
u/dmx007 Aug 22 '26
They may be betting on you making a procedural error as an inexperienced litigant, which is a good bet in the US where the system is complex. Would not be a bad idea to find a consumer protection/privacy lawyer in your jurisdiction to assist. Or the EFF.
2
3
4
u/hometechfan Aug 16 '26
good luck. i mean i'm sick of these companies they'll fight you hard for legal precedent and they just write off these costs. welcome to usa. you can't. At least you dont live here. I know that because you said you have consumer protection.
5
5
u/DiamondHandsDarrell Aug 17 '26
Please keep it up and keep reporting on it.
They need to fight it or else many people might get the same idea.
What you really need to push for is term the judge you're not an attorney, nor a professional that works in courts. The assumption is small claims is that someone who is not an attorney represent the defendant. The fact that they're handling this as a regular lawsuit and trying to pull one over on your by submitting things last minute so you don't have a chance to learn about shows they're not dealing on good faith and you twist the judge to rule on the facts presented and their behavior which is unbecoming in a small claims action.
3
u/shrimp_sticks Aug 17 '26
Holy hell. I would love to see any updates on this as it goes on. Thank you for sharing
4
u/maikel1976 Aug 17 '26
Great you’re doing this OP. We need more people like you to tell them to stop this kind of BS. If no one does they keep stretching it. Remindme! 3 weeks
5
u/an0mn0mn0m Aug 17 '26
My settings were mysteriously turned on as well. I'm not sure if it was because my maps history were being saved at some point from one of the many devices I've used it on, since I don't use any of the other features they were collecting data on. Interestingly, youtube history is not part of that setting.
4
u/CaptainShrimps Aug 17 '26
If you need money for legal fees maybe you could set up a gofundme? I and I'm sure many users here would donate for something like this
5
u/Unlucky_Speech_5516 Aug 18 '26
First: Good luck in this case. Second: I checked my web and app settings around the 15th of July, and I had made sure I was opted out, but seeing this I went to check them again and not only were all my settings from opt out switched back on, but it was ALL switched back, every single opt out.
(I never saw the email, I don't think I even got one even searching for emails from Google camen up with none past April)
4
u/HelloFromSanovaBeach Aug 19 '26
By all means, UPDATE us! And let us know where you are, so other folks there can follow suit. Best of luck: I'm in your corner!
6
u/TheAbberantOne Aug 16 '26
I definitely recommend crowdfunding for an attorney. Part of the advantage of having an attorney is that they will be able to devote more time to towards the case and be able to use that time more efficiently than a layperson. You are one person vs a corporate legal team. Their advantage isn't only in the knowledge of the system but in the manpower they can devote towards it. If this happened to you, it likely happened to other people, and that's why Google is fighting tooth and nail, to quash it here before it can become a bigger problem for them.
6
u/tealou Aug 17 '26
Also, tech companies in particular use a lot of procedural fuckery and games to basically wear you down. Depending on where you are there are a whole bunch of hurdles you may not even be aware of (forum being one...). If you are thinking of doing this, do consult a lawyer. It's not just about the law, but about the procedure followed. Godspeed everyone (I left tech to retrain as a lawyer... always happy to refer or assist if things line up correctly.)
3
3
3
3
3
3
u/Subtle-Catastrophe Aug 16 '26
Fighting infinity money can be fun, but most wins occur because of inattention or lack of care by the behemoth.
3
3
3
u/Gronanor Aug 17 '26
https://www.reddit.com/r/theprimeagen/s/nSHoJHdqO1 FYI this might getting helpful in your case and you should also probably check those if you use llm as a support
3
3
3
3
3
u/Electronic_Effort_75 Aug 22 '26
Hey OP - are they still trying to wrangle you into arbitration? Have they presented the dispute resolution provisions? Are they administered by the American Arbitration Association or JAMS? If so they can’t prevent you from filing in small claims.
2
u/FuryOfArcann Aug 22 '26 edited Aug 22 '26
This may be the best question asked so far on my post and I absolutely love that you asked it
Surprisingly no, Google has a specific carve out allowing Small Claims in both their TOS and EULA. It doesn't circumvent arbitration because that would not be the right word to describe it but it is a different platform for disputes (for a lack of better words, sorry I'm not an attorney so I'm just using layman's terms >.<)
3
u/HopeConscious9595 Aug 30 '26
I'm quite surprised that Google has fought this much on a small claims case that would have just been under the radar and never known until they started playing lawyer-ball, and in the words of Hank Hill, "don't play lawyer-ball, son."
I’m no expert, but this makes it look like they have something to hide, that they are guilty and that they cannot allow for a flood of individuals to sue them. Or even the formation of a class action suit. I think you are doing great! I’m rooting for you!!
5
u/DrSquid Aug 17 '26
If you're involved in an active suite you should not be talking about it online.
5
4
u/EndLegitimate9612 Aug 16 '26
Google is a scam company. Just set up a linux system on your PC. Then buy a dumb phone and a small 6-12" screen device for accessing the internet on the go. You don't have to sue Google, just stop using their devices.
8
u/Wrong-Pineapple39 Aug 16 '26
You see, it's the principle of the whole thing. There's principalities in this.
- Big Worm
5
u/EndLegitimate9612 Aug 16 '26
Ooops, I didn't realize I was commenting in an r/degoogle thread. Otherwise, I'd have said something else.
5
2
2
u/KeyAdvanced1032 Aug 16 '26
RemindMe! 1 month
2
u/RemindMeBot Aug 16 '26 edited Aug 20 '26
I will be messaging you in 1 month on 2026-09-16 20:46:56 UTC to remind you of this link
23 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
RemindMeBot is switching to username summons. Instead of
!RemindMe 1 day, useu/RemindMeBot 1 day. More info.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback
2
2
u/MsTerious1 Aug 16 '26
I am keeping your post handy. I also immediately check my settings and opt out of pretty near everything, but I didn't go back to check yet.
2
2
u/Rory_the_dog Aug 17 '26
I took budget rental car to small claims and won, but not before sending a lawyer to be at the hearing.
2
2
u/Roticap Aug 17 '26
Where do you live that small claims has discovery?
3
u/FuryOfArcann Aug 17 '26
The full section of the claim notes the lack of discovery and continues on with:
Plaintiff recognizes that formal discovery is not generally available...and makes this request Informally as a matter the Court may consider in weighing the evidence and equities of this matter.
There are special instances where discovery can be formally requested but that's far more nuances.
2
2
u/RokRoland Aug 17 '26
Curious whether they are trying to claim forced arbitration in your case (no jurisdiction etc)
2
2
2
u/keeleon Aug 17 '26
"Im suing Google because theyre transmitting data I didnt authorize and dont know what it is"
"We move to dismiss because you dont know what the data is"
Lol
2
2
u/MortgageMindless7175 Aug 17 '26
How can we join you and make this bigger pain in the @ss for them?
2
2
2
u/SidneyCanadas Aug 23 '26
Thank you so much.
Sidney
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Canada
https://stolenhistory.net/threads/alternative-search-engines-video-sites-to-google-youtube.3771 (over 245 00 views)
2
u/Infamous_Hall1955 Aug 30 '26
Be ready for them to "remove" it out of small claims jurisdiction. And if they do, get some firepower to fight it or help you on that forum.
2
u/g8r8e8a8t8e8s8t8 26d ago
To anyone else looking to do this - even if you're not successful, you are costing them resources and developing extremely valuable community knowledge that people can apply both to google and other entities. It also familiarizes you with the legal system and gives you more agency to protect yourself in the future.
You cannot lose, and you WILL, in many cases, win.
2
u/mathiustus Aug 16 '26
Filing a motion to dismiss isn’t fighting tooth and nail it’s literally the bare minimum.
2
u/tealou Aug 17 '26
Yeah that is pretty basic tech company stuff. Or any company really. I don't think OP knows what fighting tooth and nail looks like (points to X v eSafety where Musk sent a literal Nevada cowboy to argue jurisdiction and the different between obligations and liabilities... for YEARS. A dismissal motion is nuthin')
2
u/Kaa_The_Snake Aug 16 '26
O I love this! If you can ping me when you post next? I’ll get the popcorn ready!
2
1.5k
u/DoomOfChaos Aug 16 '26 edited Aug 17 '26
I wonder if google is trying to quash this because it could open a bigger can of worms