Google loses bid to question Texas in state’s biometric privacy lawsuit
By Mike Scarcella
Aug 2 (Reuters) -A Texas state judge on Friday barred Google from questioning the state and its legal team in their lawsuit accusing the Alphabet GOOGL.O unit of unlawfully collecting biometric privacy data of millions of Texans without consent.
In a brief order, Judge Leah Robinson in Midland County said Google could not compel Texas to submit to a deposition in the case. Texas had opposed Google’s effort to depose the state, calling it an impermissible effort to “investigate the investigator.”
Google wanted to question Texas over the state’s understanding of key terms in the privacy law at the center of the 2022 lawsuit, including how liabilities and penalties are determined. Google said the state had refused to offer a witness who could talk about the basis of the state’s claims and provide evidence that Google could need for its defense.
Google on Friday declined to comment. The Texas attorney general's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Texas in its lawsuit accused Google of deceptive trade practices and alleged it violated a state law that shields biometric identifiers such as faces, fingerprints and eye scans from being captured without approval.
Google unlawfully collected biometric data through Google Photos, Google Assistant and Nest Hub Max, Texas said. The privacy law sets out penalties of up to $25,000 per violation. Google has denied any wrongdoing.
Google told the court in a filing in May that the Texas biometric privacy law “sat unenforced for its first twenty years on the books” before the state lodged cases against Google and Facebook parent Meta in 2022.
Meta META.O this week agreed to pay $1.4 billion to resolve the Texas lawsuit.
Lawyers for Texas at Keller Postman and McKool Smith said the settlement was the largest-ever won by a single state. Meta denied any wrongdoing in agreeing to settle.
The case is Texas v Google LLC, 385th Judicial District Court, Midland County, No. CV58999.
For Texas: Marc Collier and Joseph Graham Jr of Norton Rose Fulbright
For Google: R. Paul Yetter of Yetter Coleman; Benedict Hur and Simona Agnolucci of Willkie Farr & Gallagher
Read more:
Legal Fee Tracker: Texas contracts show law firms' stake in $1.4 bln Meta settlement
Meta to pay $1.4 billion to settle Texas facial recognition data lawsuit
Texas fights Google deposition bid in biometric privacy lawsuit
Texas sues Google for allegedly capturing biometric data of millions without consent
Reporting by Mike Scarcella
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
