Class Action Fishing: Apple Sued Over Third Party User Tracking
from the seems-like-a-stretch dept
One of those class action specialist lawsuit firms, who seem to file lawsuits mostly designed to make the lawyers money, rather than correct any sort of improper actions, has sued Apple and some app makers over supposed privacy violations. At issue is the fact that some apps pass on the unique UDID code that is associated with each iPhone to advertisers. This lets advertisers track the same user across multiple apps -- similar, in some sense, to a browser cookie. The "difference" is that a browser cookie is deletable, while you're stuck with your UDID. This all came out a couple weeks ago in a WSJ article, and since these kinds of lawyers are opportunists, they're always quick to jump on any lawsuit opportunity whenever the press highlights a story like this.Not surprisingly, it appears this case is yet another attempt to abuse the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), which is generally thought of as an anti-hacking law, but which is continulously stretched and abused to pull in other situations. In this case, the lawyers are claiming that accessing the UDID without permission is the equivalent of accessing a computer without authorization. Think about that for a second and then realize how silly this is. No one is hacking anything to get this info. The info is made available, and so it's been shared. Using the CFAA here is ridiculous. They also seek to use a similar California anti-hacking law in a similar way. This is clearly not what those laws are intended for.
Furthermore, it seems silly to blame Apple for the way that some app providers are sharing data. To get around this issue, the lawyers rely on two key points. First, that Apple itself recently changed its terms to ban apps from sending data to third parties such as ad networks. Of course, most people realized this was not about protecting privacy, but about forcing developers to use Apple's own ad platform. Second, the fact that Apple approves each of the apps in the marketplace. I know that some people assume this automatically adds liability to Apple for anything those apps do, but that seems like a bit of a stretch as well. It's ridiculous to assume that Apple tests all aspects of an app, and thus becomes liable for anything those apps do.
All in all this looks like yet another attempt by some lawyers to take some fear mongering and make some money out of it. It's not going to do anything to protect anyone's actual privacy.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ads, apps, class action, iphones, privacy
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
While this country is beyond suit-happy, does techdirt have another option in terms of changing corporate behavior rather than threat of monetary loss?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As a consumer, you have the ability to select the apps you buy. Don't buy the ones that use your information in ways you are uncomfortable with. If that does not suit you - don't buy an iPhone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point is not that accessing the UDIDs is a good thing, but that it's probably not an illegal thing - and it's definitely not in violation of anti-hacking laws. If these lawyers want to pore over all the contracts and licenses and EULAs involved and show that a law actually was broken, then they are free to do so - but they should not twist a law that was clearly never intended to apply to situations like this just so they can launch a class-action.
Abuse of the law can sometimes bring desirable short-term effects, but in the long run it is always bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps I'm not quite as trusting of companies mining my data in a way that I don't have oversight on, and I think I still prefer an 'opt-in' choice rather than 'opt-out', and I personally have found Apple's attitude a bit too invasive to make me comfortable. Granted, their corporate policy is their choice, by my choice not to agree with it is mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree that Apple has a higher likelihood of liability because they do take on some responsibility for approving apps. But I'm troubled by the suggestion that if you review *some* aspects of an app, you've now taken on liability for *all* aspects of that app.
In the case law around things like Section 230, this sort of argument has generally been rejected. That is, in the case law, if you (for example) moderate comments on an email list, it does not make you responsible for libelous messages that others wrote, but which you approved.
I would think the same thing applies here.
Perhaps I'm not quite as trusting of companies mining my data in a way that I don't have oversight on, and I think I still prefer an 'opt-in' choice rather than 'opt-out', and I personally have found Apple's attitude a bit too invasive to make me comfortable. Granted, their corporate policy is their choice, by my choice not to agree with it is mine.
I agree, but that's a market choice. I'm not sure this lawsuit should apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you create a walled garden
If Apple was just providing a space for vendors to use, like a street for any vendor to set up shop, then common carrier status would protect them.
But since they are looking at every product and vendor that enters the market they accept full responsibility for everything, good or bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you create a walled garden
Again, as I stated above, I don't believe this makes sense, and I don't believe it's how the law views things. If you look at the caselaw on Section 230, it does say that if you're a service provider who reviews *some* aspects of content that you moderate, it does not make you liable for everything in that content.
I think it's a leap to say because Apple reviews apps to make sure they work, it means they also take responsibility for sneaky things the apps do. Think through the implications of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you create a walled garden
It would appear that Apple's flawed design allowed this to happen. Their walled garden approach on Apps only makes this worse, because they would be aware of what each app was doing. So they set up the situation to allow for violation of privacy, and then did nothing to stop it (and appear to have approved it on a number of apps).
Sort of hard for the to wiggle out of this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you create a walled garden
Lets say you run a market, and you check every product and vendor. You check them against your health and safety standards, and to ensure they aren't selling counterfeit goods or stolen property, then you let them in.
Certainly you could be liable if they violated the things you specifically checked for. But are you also liable if they turn out to be doing something else entirely? Maybe constructing an illegal mailing list of their customers, or making unauthorized recordings of their conversations with them? It wouldn't make sense for your liability to extend to something you never took any responsibility for in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I had a link...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple could fix it with an OS update, I am sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt, Get Your Facts Straight
First, the lawsuit was filed by the co-founder of Microsoft, Paul Allen, who is NOT a patent troll.
Second, he filed the lawsuit against "several" companies who are violating the same patents that Paul Allen owns. Aol, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo and YouTube are all companies who are named in the lawsuit.
Third: The lawsuits involved:
-- U.S. Patent No. 6,263,507, for "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data."
-- U.S. Patent No. 6,034,652, for "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
-- U.S. Patent No. 6,788,314, for "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
-- U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682, for "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt, Get Your Facts Straight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt, Get Your Facts Straight
That aside not sure why he is bringing this to this thread since what he posted here has nothing to do with what is being discussed, it is not about patents, it is about privacy or did I miss something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt, Get Your Facts Straight
Paul Allen is not suing Apple regarding privacy protections, which is what this article is about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt, Get Your Facts Straight
Kinda funny to call us out on not doing our research when your comment is about an entirely unrelated lawsuit.
Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wideband GSM Sniffing
http://srlabs.de/research/decrypt ing_gsm/
I wonder if they will sue the phone companies too since GSM now can be broken with 4 disposable cellphones and a laptop and they still didn't upgrade or secure GSM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt, Get Your Facts Straight
Now that multiple companies are abusing his patents, without paying for the right to use those patents, everyone's saying he doesn't have a right to request compensation from the courts?
That's akin to saying that if I'm in my yard and the neighbor's dog broke free from his yard and came over iinto my property and bit me that I don't have the right to sue.
Believe what you want, but a patent is akin to property. If you want to use that "property" then you have to ask permission to use it. If you use that "property" without permission or without compensation then you accept the responsibility that comes from the illegal use of that "property."
The one thing that Paul Allen might have going for him is his connection to Microsoft and the fact is that there's a likely possibility that he's going to win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bias much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bias much?
This may be the funniest comment of the day. I'm almost always accused of hating on Apple. So suddenly you think I'm siding with them? How does that make any "bias" apparent?
Furthermore, if you read this site (hell read just the links in this post), you'll note that I've condemned lots of similar class action lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free iTunes Codes
iPod Redeem Codes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]