The Supreme Court seems divided on the Google regulation that gave to charities

In 2010, two Google users in the US sued the company for sharing their search terms with third-party websites. Four years later, Google settled the case for $ 8.5 million, promising to donate the bulk of the money to charitable organizations whose goal is to improve privacy. users.

But before the lawyers on both sides could finalize the agreement, there was an objection.

Lawyer Theodore Frank wanted to know why none of this money was going to Google users like him. On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court heard its objections during the oral proceedings and appeared divided on the point of knowing it was right.

In addition, some judges questioned the very idea that Google users were harmed when the company disclosed their search terms to third parties without their consent.

The case risks compromising an unusual form of settlement to which some technology companies – and others as well – have subscribed to resolve their disputes. Called a "cy pres" award, this type of settlement is intended for charities that submit proposals to solve problems identified in the lawsuit.

Critics such as Frank dispute settlements that only reap immediate compensation and give no funds directly to plaintiffs. Supporters say that it is a good solution when a settlement would give only a few cents to each plaintiff.

In the case against Frank, the lawyers determined that each Google user concerned would receive less than a dollar. But Frank said the lawyers said these figures were not realistic. In addition, he has allowed plaintiffs' lawyers to charge high fees – about $ 2 million in the Google case – without giving in to the settlement funds to any of the group members, putting in place "perverse incentives" for the plaintiffs' lawyers money to thirds instead of their clients.

"When the courts have insisted that lawyers are paid only if their clients are paid, they find a way to improve the claims process and make sure the money reaches the class. "said Frank.

Who benefits from the cy rewards?

Assistant Judge Samuel Alito challenged the idea that cy cy award-winning organizations can participate in advocacy activities with which the group members do not agree.

"We give money to organizations that they like or do not like and who can or can not do something that benefits them even indirectly," Alito said. "How can such a system be considered as a sensible system?"

Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to side with Frank's arguments, arguing that the organizations that were winning this money were not known for their privacy protection online and that some of them they had already received money from Google.

"Do not you think the money goes to a charity or organization 501 (c) (3) to which Google has already contributed in the past?" Roberts asked Jeffrey Lamken, a lawyer for the plaintiffs who initially sued Google.

Lamken countered that the federal judge who approved the settlement found the winners of the award to be appropriate. In addition, he said, organizations that receive funding are obliged to use them for specific programs related to the confidentiality of Internet searches and not for political advocacy activities.

"This specifically concerns the type of injury and the type of problem, the invasion of privacy, to which this class is subject," Lamken said.

Other judges asked whether there was a legal basis for the Supreme Court to rule that court decisions should not be allowed. Deputy Judge Sonia Sotomayor raised this issue, adding that it appears that the federal courts are doing a good job of eliminating the damaging regulations that do not benefit the class members.

"You report some potentially abusive situations, but in all these situations there are cases where the circuit court has rejected a cy pres sentence." Sotomayor said. "It seems like the system works but does not work."

What makes a violation of privacy harmful?

Several judges wondered if they should look into the issue of cy rewards. This is because they were not sure that the plaintiffs had legal grounds to sue Google for breach of privacy.

This means that judges could order the federal court where the case began to re-examine the lawsuit before the Supreme Court could rule on the settlement.

The plaintiffs claimed in their lawsuit that Google had wronged them by sharing their search terms in specific circumstances. When users enter words into the Google search engine, they see a list of results. Once the user clicks on one of these results and is redirected to another website, this second website collects the search terms entered by the user.

Deputy Judge Steven Breyer asked if this hurts Google users. The Supreme Court ruled in 2016 In a case called Spokeo v. Robins, plaintiffs in lawsuits for breach of privacy must prove the existence of a "harm in fact" or the existence of actual harm caused by a violation of life private. This means that simply proving that a violation of privacy has taken place is not enough to ground a lawsuit.

The Federal Court in the case against Google did not decide whether the plaintiffs had claimed to have suffered factual injury. Associate Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg then asked aloud whether this meant that the Supreme Court should refer the case to the Federal Court for it to rule on this issue.

Chief Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, said that "common sense" showed that Google users did not want third parties to see everything they were looking for.

"I do not think anyone would want the disclosure of everything they've been looking for to be disclosed to other people," Kavanaugh said. "It seems like a bad thing."

Security: stay abreast of the latest violations, hacks, fixes, and all the cybersecurity issues that keep you awake at night.

NASA is 60 years old: the space agency has pushed humanity further than anyone and plans to go further.

https://www.cnet.com/topics/security/