- Journal Archives
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
And here’s the bitter pill: don’t like it? Tough. If you have a smartphone running an Android system, all Android phones were automatically placed under the new policy. To the consumer this means that if you do not like the new policy, your options are to deal with it, switch to non-Google services which do not typically run well on the Android system, or to get another phone. The latter option will normally require terminating your phone service and paying an early-termination fee.
Even if Google’s change doesn’t violate American laws, foreign authorities have been adamant that the changes violate European transparency and privacy laws. Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding of the European Commission has been particularly outspoken about her doubts of the changes’ legality. Other members have warned Google of the same, requesting a delay in the policies implementation. None was granted.
Although the legality of Google’s new policy remains unresolved, the question Google really should also be asking is whether the policy is really in its best interest. Behavioral privacy is something highly valued by the vast majority of consumers. Although Google expects its data to be more lucrative and hopes to tap the unused potential of its data goldmine, to simply force consumers to either shut up or get out is not the right policy, particularly where a considerable amount of consumer privacy may be at stake. Only time will tell whether Google’s risk will pay off.
In the mean time, Google was right about at least one thing: this stuff matters.
– Tim Van Hal
Recent Blog Posts
- If You Build It, They Will Come: Baseball and the Reopening of Cuba
- First Circuit Aligns With Third: Actavis Extends Beyond Cash Settlements
- Current Issues in Technology Law: Dr. Asma Vranaki Analyzes Data Privacy Regulation in the Context of Facebook Advertisements
- Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law Rises in National Law Journal Rankings
- Dancing Babies: The Ninth Circuit May Have Protected Them from Computer Algorithms
- Starbucks’ Next Top Model: It Could Be You
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution