Google: Difference between revisions
"domain-blocker ban" incident |
|||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
Devices without [[Google Mobile Services]] or running custom ROMs are exempt.<ref name=":22">{{Cite web |last=Anderson |first=Tim |date=2025-08-26 |title=Google kneecaps indie Android devs, forces them to register |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/26/android_developer_verification_sideloading |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250829170329/https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/26/android_developer_verification_sideloading |archive-date=2025-08-29 |access-date=2025-08-26 |website=The Register}}</ref> Critics argue this restricts user freedom, impacts independent developers, and may enable Google to block apps it disapproves of, such as ad-blockers, raising concerns about privacy and control over personal devices.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Anderson |first=Tim |date=26 Aug 2025 |title=Google kneecaps indie Android devs, forces them to register |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/26/android_developer_verification_sideloading |url-status=live |access-date=26 Aug 2025 |website=The Register |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260119211440/https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/26/android_developer_verification_sideloading/ |archive-date=19 Jan 2026}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite web |first= |date=26 Aug 2025 |title=Google will block sideloading of unverified Android apps starting next year |url=https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/810335/google-will-block-sideloading-of-unverified-android-apps-starting-next-year |url-status=live |access-date=26 Aug 2025 |website=BleepingComputer |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250829215120/https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/810335/google-will-block-sideloading-of-unverified-android-apps-starting-next-year/ |archive-date=29 Aug 2025}}</ref> | Devices without [[Google Mobile Services]] or running custom ROMs are exempt.<ref name=":22">{{Cite web |last=Anderson |first=Tim |date=2025-08-26 |title=Google kneecaps indie Android devs, forces them to register |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/26/android_developer_verification_sideloading |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250829170329/https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/26/android_developer_verification_sideloading |archive-date=2025-08-29 |access-date=2025-08-26 |website=The Register}}</ref> Critics argue this restricts user freedom, impacts independent developers, and may enable Google to block apps it disapproves of, such as ad-blockers, raising concerns about privacy and control over personal devices.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Anderson |first=Tim |date=26 Aug 2025 |title=Google kneecaps indie Android devs, forces them to register |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/26/android_developer_verification_sideloading |url-status=live |access-date=26 Aug 2025 |website=The Register |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260119211440/https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/26/android_developer_verification_sideloading/ |archive-date=19 Jan 2026}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite web |first= |date=26 Aug 2025 |title=Google will block sideloading of unverified Android apps starting next year |url=https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/810335/google-will-block-sideloading-of-unverified-android-apps-starting-next-year |url-status=live |access-date=26 Aug 2025 |website=BleepingComputer |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250829215120/https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/810335/google-will-block-sideloading-of-unverified-android-apps-starting-next-year/ |archive-date=29 Aug 2025}}</ref> | ||
=== Banning domain-blockers from Play Store === | ===Banning domain-blockers from Play Store=== | ||
Since 2013, Google has taken down all apps on G-Play that can block connections to arbitrary [[wikipedia:Domain_Name_System|domain-names]] via [https://developer.android.com/develop/connectivity/vpn the official VPN API], most of those apps being marketed as ad-blockers.<ref>https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-kicks-ad-blocker-apps-off-play-store/</ref> This forced apps such as AdGuard and NetGuard to distribute their ad-blocking features elsewhere.<ref>https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-google-play-removal.html</ref><ref>https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/7308869411ff87649bf3a46a9c7c08f1e5353801/ADBLOCKING.md?plain=1#L6</ref><ref>https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/7308869411ff87649bf3a46a9c7c08f1e5353801/ADBLOCKING.md?plain=1#L106</ref> | Since 2013, Google has taken down all apps on G-Play that can block connections to arbitrary [[wikipedia:Domain_Name_System|domain-names]] via [https://developer.android.com/develop/connectivity/vpn the official VPN API], most of those apps being marketed as ad-blockers.<ref>https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-kicks-ad-blocker-apps-off-play-store/</ref> This forced apps such as AdGuard and NetGuard to distribute their ad-blocking features elsewhere.<ref>https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-google-play-removal.html</ref><ref>https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/7308869411ff87649bf3a46a9c7c08f1e5353801/ADBLOCKING.md?plain=1#L6</ref><ref>https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/7308869411ff87649bf3a46a9c7c08f1e5353801/ADBLOCKING.md?plain=1#L106</ref> | ||
| Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
==Anti-consumer legal cases== | ==Anti-consumer legal cases== | ||
=== | === Privacy Violations === | ||
===Epic Games, Inc. v. Google Inc. ( | ==== Rodriguez v. Google LLC (21 May 2021 - 3 Sep 2025) ==== | ||
Google's "Web & App Activity" (WAA) setting had the ability to be paused. Reportedly, despite this setting being paused by consumers, Google would continue to collect consumer data regardless of consent.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Rodriguez v. Google LLC |url=https://www.googlewebappactivitylawsuit.com/Home/FAQ#faq1 |url-status=live |access-date=5 Apr 2025 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251011171640/https://googlewebappactivitylawsuit.com/Home/FAQ |archive-date=11 Oct 2025}}</ref> This case is currently ongoing and has yet to receive a judgment.<ref>[https://www.googlewebappactivitylawsuit.com/Home/Documents Important Documents] ([http://web.archive.org/web/20250911091039/https://googlewebappactivitylawsuit.com/Home/Documents Archived])</ref> Google collected mobile device data for eight years from users who opted out of tracking under the WAA.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Staab |first=Theresa |date=18 Sep 2025 |title=Someone is Always Watching: Implications of Google's WAA Privacy Case |url=https://lawreview.syr.edu/someone-is-always-watching-implications-of-googles-waa-privacy-case/ |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=Syracuse Law Review}}</ref> The dates of use/activity in question were between July 1, 2016 and September 23, 2024.<ref>{{Cite web |date=23 Oct 2024 |title=FAQs: Google Web App Activity lawsuit |url=https://help.wfu.edu/support/solutions/articles/13000825158-faqs-google-web-app-activity-lawsuit |url-status=live |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=Wake Forest University}}</ref> On September 3, 2025, the San Francisco Federal Court jury held Google liable two of three claims of privacy invasion. Google was charged $425 million for invasion of privacy, but not for punitive damages since the jury found that Google did not act with malicious intent.<ref name=":5" /> | |||
=== Anti-competitive Behavior === | |||
==== Epic Games, Inc. v. Google Inc. (13 Aug 2020 - 31 May 2025) ==== | |||
Google takes a 30% share of all revenue made through all sales made on the Play Store, which is a comparable figure to other digital storefronts such as the [[Apple App Store]] and [[Steam]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Marks |first=Tom |date=7 Oct 2019 |title=Report: Steam's 30% Cut Is Actually the Industry Standard |url=https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard |url-status=live |website=ign.com |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251211034837/https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard |archive-date=11 Dec 2025}}</ref> On 13th August 2020, [[Epic Games]] CEO Tim Sweeney updated both iOS and Android versions of ''Fortnite'' to redirect users to Epic Games' storefront to purchase in-game currency ("V-Bucks") alongside the respective first-party storefront, with incentives including cheaper prices if buying from Epic Games directly. This violated the Terms of Service of both Apple and Google's storefronts, and ''Fortnite'' was removed from both app stores the same day. | Google takes a 30% share of all revenue made through all sales made on the Play Store, which is a comparable figure to other digital storefronts such as the [[Apple App Store]] and [[Steam]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Marks |first=Tom |date=7 Oct 2019 |title=Report: Steam's 30% Cut Is Actually the Industry Standard |url=https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard |url-status=live |website=ign.com |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251211034837/https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard |archive-date=11 Dec 2025}}</ref> On 13th August 2020, [[Epic Games]] CEO Tim Sweeney updated both iOS and Android versions of ''Fortnite'' to redirect users to Epic Games' storefront to purchase in-game currency ("V-Bucks") alongside the respective first-party storefront, with incentives including cheaper prices if buying from Epic Games directly. This violated the Terms of Service of both Apple and Google's storefronts, and ''Fortnite'' was removed from both app stores the same day. | ||
Epic Games would use this motion to file federal lawsuits against both Google and Apple, citing that these practices meant that the companies were engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Google lost in the lawsuit, but attempted to appeal the decision, in which they lost again.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hollister |first=Sean |date=31 July 2025 |title=Epic just won its Google lawsuit again, and Android may never be the same |url=https://www.theverge.com/news/716856/epic-v-google-win-in-appeals-court |access-date=21 August 2025 |work=The Verge |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260111151936/https://www.theverge.com/news/716856/epic-v-google-win-in-appeals-court |archive-date=11 Jan 2026}}</ref> | Epic Games would use this motion to file federal lawsuits against both Google and Apple, citing that these practices meant that the companies were engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Google lost in the lawsuit, but attempted to appeal the decision, in which they lost again.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hollister |first=Sean |date=31 July 2025 |title=Epic just won its Google lawsuit again, and Android may never be the same |url=https://www.theverge.com/news/716856/epic-v-google-win-in-appeals-court |access-date=21 August 2025 |work=The Verge |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260111151936/https://www.theverge.com/news/716856/epic-v-google-win-in-appeals-court |archive-date=11 Jan 2026}}</ref> | ||
=== Social Media Addiction Bellwether Trials === | |||
==== Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP 5255 (2026) ==== | |||
Starting in January of 2026, Meta (Facebook and [[Instagram]]) and [[Google]] ([[YouTube]]) faced legal claims of their platforms being intentionally addictive and harmful to children. [[ByteDance]] ([[TikTok]]) and Snap ([[Snapchat]]) were named initially, but settled for undisclosed terms before the trial began. A 19-year-old girl, referred to by the initials "KGM" or Kaley, and two other plaintiffs were selected for bellwether trials—test cases tried as part of an MDL.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Huamani |first=Kaitlyn |last2=Ortutay |first2=Barbara |date=9 Feb 2026 |title=Landmark trial accusing tech giants of harming children with addictive social media begins |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/landmark-trial-accusing-tech-giants-of-harming-children-with-addictive-social-media-begins |url-status=live |access-date=25 Mar 2026 |website=PBS News}}</ref> On March 25, 2026, the California jury concluded in KGM's case that Meta and Google were guilty of negligent for their apps—[[Instagram]], Facebook, and [[YouTube]]—being deliberately built to be addictive, which the companies' executives knew this and failed to protect their youngest users.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Allyn |first=Bobby |date=25 Mar 2026 |title=Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial |url=https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict |url-status=live |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=npr}}</ref> Meta was charged to pay $4.2 million for compensatory and punitive damages, and charged Google $1.8 million.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kang |first=Cecilia |last2=Mac |first2=Ryan |last3=Tan |first3=Eli |date=25 Mar 2026 |title=Meta and YouTube Found Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Case |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html |url-status=live |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=The New York Times}}</ref> | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||