In a recent development, Google, along with its AI subsidiary DeepMind and parent company Alphabet, is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit filed by Clarkson Law Firm in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges that Google has been surreptitiously collecting and utilizing the personal and professional information of hundreds of millions of Americans, without their consent, to train its generative AI products, including the chatbot Bard. According to the lawsuit, Google’s actions encompassed a broad range of data, including personal and professional information, creative and copyrighted works, photographs, and even emails, effectively constituting the entirety of individuals’ digital footprints.
It further asserts that Google harvested this data clandestinely over an extended period, without providing notice or seeking permission from the affected individuals. The lawsuit specifically claims that Google accessed this data from subscription-based websites and websites associated with pirated books. In support of its claims, the complaint refers to an update made to Google’s privacy policy on July 1, wherein the company acknowledged gathering “publicly available online” information. This data, as per the lawsuit, was subsequently employed to train AI models and build various Google products such as Google Translate, Bard, and Cloud AI capabilities.
The plaintiffs argue that Google’s interpretation of “publicly available” data infringes upon their rights. They assert that sharing information online does not grant Google ownership over their creative works, personal expressions, or images of their families and children. The lawsuit contends that the phrase “publicly available” has never signified that data can be freely exploited for any purpose. In response to the allegations, Google’s general counsel, Halimah DeLaine Prado, clarified that the company had been transparent about its use of publicly available data for years.
Prado stated that Google responsibly employs data from public sources and public datasets in accordance with their AI Principles. Moreover, Prado emphasized that US law supports leveraging public information to develop new beneficial applications. Google looks forward to refuting the lawsuit’s claims, deeming them baseless. As the lawsuit unfolds, it remains to be seen how the court will interpret the boundaries of data usage and the extent to which consent is required for training AI systems. The outcome of this case may have significant implications for data privacy and the practices employed by tech companies in leveraging publicly accessible information.