Text of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
Shouldn't private browsing habits be considered part of ones persons or effects? Don't we have a right to not be tracked?
The 4th Amendment means that you're secure from unreasonable searches and seizures BY THE GOVERNMENT. It does not regulate Google's behavior. That is controlled by the law.
The point of using cookies is to track user's behavior. In other words, Google collects my private web usage habits and preferences, my likes and dislikes being my personal secrets and information, which by means of my preferences I clearly stated that I have no intention sharing with a third party.
Their algorithms thus find a way to steal the information from me, which is the information about my likes, dislikes and browsing habits.
Them having information I don't want them to have is a violation of my privacy, with privacy being a valuable asset in and by itself, which has been taken away from me, which constitutes harm done.
Yes, not monetary harm, but harm nonetheless. The problem with the decision at hand is that it considers only harm something that's monetary or tangible property.
I don't think anyone is arguing that Google should be able to do what they did with impunity. I'm simply arguing that under U.S. law, you must be able to prove harm in order to win a civil case. That doesn't mean that there was no harm - just that the plaintiffs did not prove any harm.
One can, for example, sue for slander even when proving quantitative harm is difficult. But you still have to prove harm - which the plaintiffs didn't do.