Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai in 2019 was warned that describing the company’s Incognito browsing mode as “private” was problematic, but it stayed the course for the reason that he did not want the feature “under the spotlight,” according to a new court filing.
Google spokesman Jose Castaneda told Reuters that the filing “mischaracterizes emails referencing unrelated second and third-hand accounts.”
The Alphabet Inc unit’s privacy disclosures have generated regulatory and legal scrutiny in current years amid developing public issues about on-line surveillance.
Users last June alleged in a lawsuit that Google unlawfully tracked their web use when they have been browsing Incognito in its Chrome browser. Google has stated it tends to make clear that Incognito only stops information from getting saved to a user’s device and is fighting the lawsuit.
In a written update on trial preparations filed Thursday in U.S. district court, attorneys for the customers stated they “anticipate seeking to depose” Pichai and Google Chief Marketing Officer Lorraine Twohill.
The attorneys, citing Google documents, stated Pichai “was informed in 2019 as part of a project driven by Twohill that Incognito should not be referred to as ‘private’ because that ran ‘the risk of exacerbating known misconceptions about protections Incognito mode provides.'”
The filing continued, “As part of those discussions, Pichai decided that he ‘didn’t want to put incognito under the spotlight’ and Google continued without addressing those known issues.”
Castañeda stated teams “routinely discuss ways to improve the privacy controls built into our services.” Google’s attorneys stated they would oppose efforts to depose Pichai and Twohill.
Last month, plaintiffs deposed Google vice president Brian Rakowski, described in the filing as “the ‘father’ of Incognito mode.” He testified that although Google states Incognito enables browsing “privately,” what customers anticipate “may not match” up with the reality, according to the plaintiffs’ create-up.
Google’s attorneys rejected the summary, writing that Rakowski also stated terms like “private,” “anonymous,” and “invisible” with suitable context “can be super helpful” in explaining Incognito.
()