Graydon Head

Blog: Jack "Out of the Box"

Welcome to Jack "Out of the Box." This is a spin-off of the Firm's InfoLaw Newsletter, much like "CSI: Miami" is a spin-off from "CSI." Except without all the corpses. I plan to update the blog at least weekly. Really. It's not like when I used to promise my mom to clean my room once a week. I'm more mature now. And of course, the InfoLaw Newsletter will continue every two weeks. The blog will feature shorter pieces, and ideally, reader feedback. Should be fun. Oh yeah, and informative.

Too Big To Nail?

Mar 04, 2014

A proposed class action suit raises the question whether Internet search giant Google is too big to nail. Sort of.  

The case, currently pending in federal court in San Jose, asks the court to certify a class of Google customers who claim that Google intercepted and read private e-mails to create tailored advertising and build user profiles. If the court certifies the class, it could consist of hundreds of millions of Internet users – most anyone who sent or received an e-mail. And Google’s exposure could amount to trillions of dollars. 

Google makes two primary arguments why the court should not certify the class. The first is pretty standard – the proposed class does not satisfy the “commonality” standard. A class action requires that its members have a common complaint and that the cases are similar enough to one another – in terms of legal arguments but also evidentiary matters – to justify treating the cases as one big lawsuit. If the claims are like cookie cutters, class status is likely. If they’re more like snowflakes, probably not. 

Google contends that this case is a collection of snowflakes. It argues that the evidence would encompass more than a billion e-mails, and there would be case by case differences over what each sender and receiver knew about whether Google was scanning.  

The plaintiffs’ lawyers contend that the case is perfectly suited for class treatment, since Google made uniform disclosures about what it was doing with its data. If that uniform disclosure was false, according to plaintiffs, then the class action route is entirely appropriate.

But Google’s other argument against certification is the sheer Mt. Everest enormity of the case. According to Google, the class would "indiscriminately amass together virtually everyone in the United States with a non-Gmail e-mail account, along with large groups of the over 400 million people who use Gmail and Google Apps." Well, perhaps that is the price of popularity. But it begs the question whether a class action should fail because it is too big. The rules of procedure require that the class satisfy a “numerosity” requirement – meaning that there have to be more than a handful of claims. But I don’t see anything in the rules that say a class can be too big. And I Googled it.


Connect on Facebook

Get Linkedin with Jack

Follow Me

Federal Trade Commission
Rebecca Tushnet's 43 (B)log
Pittsburgh Trademark Lawyer

Do You Know Jack?

(what's the point of a blog without them)
We'd love to hear what you're thinking. Although we can't guarantee that we'll post every question or comment on our site, please note that when you submit a question or comment we assume we've got your consent to post it on our site. To add a comment on any post, just click on "go comment" immediately below that post.

(you had to see this coming):
This blog is a periodic publication of Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own advisor concerning your situation and any specific legal question you may have. Many states, including Kentucky, require that law firms add the statement "THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT" on publications of this nature.

Copyright © 2016 Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP. All Rights Reserved.