Apple hit with third class-action lawsuit over data collection practices

Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple is facing a third class-action lawsuit over claims that the company collects user data even with App Tracking Transparency turned off.

Apple faces a third lawsuit
Apple faces a third lawsuit


Tests from researchers revealed that turning off the setting did not affect analytics data sent from Apple apps, including the App Store, Apple Music, Apple TV, and others. While Apple promises that the information can't identify a user, the data is reportedly transmitted with a permanent ID number that is tied to iCloud accounts, according to Gizmodo.

The text of the third lawsuit is nearly the same as that of the second one. Paul Whalen is the attorney suing Apple in New York, and the suit asks for $5 million in damages.

Class-action lawsuits

The first lawsuit of this nature happened in November 2022, from plaintiff Elliot Libman. It alleges that research has exposed Apple in that it "records, tracks, collects and monetizes analytics data - including browsing history and activity information - regardless of what safeguards or "privacy settings" consumers undertake to protect their privacy."

Specifically, the suit cites "Allow Apps to Request to Track" and "Share Analytics" settings as their main issues with Apple.

Plaintiff Joaquin Serrano filed the second lawsuit on January 6 n the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging similar violation of consumer privacy.

All of these lawsuits stem from researchers from iOS developers Mysk published in November. They found an ID in Apple analytics data referred to as "dsld" and later listed as a "Directory Services Identifier," linked to an iCloud account.

The identifier is included in all analytics data the App Store sends to Apple, with other apps doing the same. Mysk believes it means "your detailed behavior when browsing apps on the App Store is sent to Apple and contains the ID needed to link the data to you."

The behavior reportedly persists in iOS 16, but the researchers could not examine what data was sent because it was transmitted using encryption.

According to attorneys that AppleInsider spoke with after the filing of the second lawsuit, "unlawful interception of a communication" mentioned in the suit is unlikely to hold any weight, nor is an invasion of privacy given the willful use of the device by the user.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,783member
    Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed Greed 

    It’’s not like the lawyers are trying to help anyone but themselves. 
    rob53FileMakerFellerAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 9
    While I know Apple only uses this to get basic data & catch fraud ,which they clearly say in terms & conditions I hope this makes the wording more clear & allows for better understanding to user 
    Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 9
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,241member
    I bet lawyers release more personal information about clients than Apple does.
    DAalsethFileMakerFellerAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 9
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,799member
    Won’t stop until Apple is reduced to Microsoft and Googles ecosystem level of functionality, tech brothers united, and equal in mediocrity.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 9
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,621member
    While I know Apple only uses this to get basic data & catch fraud ,which they clearly say in terms & conditions I hope this makes the wording more clear & allows for better understanding to user 
    This is an area that desperately needs looking at across the industry. 

    Details need to be easy to reference and easy to understand. 

    It would be great if assistants like Siri could fish out the terms quickly and help users understand them. 

    So much more can be done. 

    While researching Huawei's cloud policies everything was well laid out but the amount of exceptions on different services was overwhelming. There was no way anyone could retain the details in context from one reading to another unless they were working with them day in, day out.

    Another industrywide problem is updating an app or service and then having to accept new terms and conditions. That practice should be banned outright unless the same process can be easily rolled back. 

    If terms and conditions are going to change after an upgrade, the details should be offered up before the user clicks 'install'. 

    Changes should also be highlighted as a summary and not only 'buried' in page after page of unmodified terms. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 6 of 9
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,799member
    avon b7 said:
    While I know Apple only uses this to get basic data & catch fraud ,which they clearly say in terms & conditions I hope this makes the wording more clear & allows for better understanding to user 
    This is an area that desperately needs looking at across the industry. 

    Details need to be easy to reference and easy to understand. 

    It would be great if assistants like Siri could fish out the terms quickly and help users understand them. 

    So much more can be done. 

    While researching Huawei's cloud policies everything was well laid out but the amount of exceptions on different services was overwhelming. There was no way anyone could retain the details in context from one reading to another unless they were working with them day in, day out.

    Another industrywide problem is updating an app or service and then having to accept new terms and conditions. That practice should be banned outright unless the same process can be easily rolled back. 

    If terms and conditions are going to change after an upgrade, the details should be offered up before the user clicks 'install'. 

    Changes should also be highlighted as a summary and not only 'buried' in page after page of unmodified terms. 

    Things need to be done when it comes to sharing information and security but I hold no hope, I have bought many items from Apple computer, over the years and recently I have bought a car from a German company three years ago, and so far I haven’t had any information that I have given either of them come back to me from a third-party.

    However, my experience with Nissan with the same information they had when I bought a car from them, they have had no problem selling it to anyone they could. (junk mail, and calls incoming).
  • Reply 7 of 9
    From gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-privacy-settings-third-lawsuit-1850000531

    "Paul Whalen, the attorney suing Apple in the New York suit, told Gizmodo he’s worked on a number of high-profile data breach cases over the last 20 years, matters that often involve unintentional errors. This isn’t one of those cases, he said.

    “Those data breaches happened in large part because someone made a mistake that shouldn’t have occurred,” Whalen said. “In this case, with Apple, there doesn’t appear to be a mistake. Apple knowingly promised one thing and did exactly the opposite. That is what makes this case feel so very different.”

    The iPhone Analytics privacy setting says that it will “disable the sharing of Device Analytics altogether” when you turn it off. Apple’s analytics privacy policy goes onto say that “none of the collected information identifies you personally.” But when researchers from the software development company Mysk tested those claims, they found that neither was true."

    ...can 'trust Apple' still apply...?

    ... is Apple rewriting or introducing every new app or feature (aka iTunes>Music/TV/Podcast) in part for surveillance data collection and is the only opt out upon initial launch as a shotgun use or decline outright use of the app ?  So one can of course try to sub out other apps at the cost of support/integration/fragmentation, however once granted revocable and how does that serve the user...?

    I continue to ask as well if the derivative data market and building an AI database are really what this is about vs the more simplistic and direct issue of personal data sales or ad targeting...

    When T2 was introduced I asked if it was part of data verification as an undisclosed or perhaps buried quid pro quo even reading the documentation I could find...

    Does Siri 'Learn from this App' settings (granular and requiring monitoring for every new app) defaulting to on even when all global Siri settings are set to off or private raise other questions...?

    ...and in suit is the marketing of CoreML (machine learning) to developers yet another aspect of concern...?

    I am not a software developer (unlike I gather some posters here) and have no potential conflict of interest commenting on such matters, and in fact have an obligation to maintain my client privacy if/as may be possible and an interest in my own digital creation and resource preservation...


    edited January 2023
  • Reply 8 of 9
    I mean, if Apple claims not to do X and then turns around and does X, that sounds like a problem to me.  The fact that Apple's X is far less egregious than Google's or Amazon's XX is irrelevant.  If they lied, they lied, and they should stop doing that.

    That's not to say they did lie, there's almost certainly something in the TOS about it, but if they did, then there's a problem.
  • Reply 9 of 9
    I mean, if Apple claims not to do X and then turns around and does X, that sounds like a problem to me.  The fact that Apple's X is far less egregious than Google's or Amazon's XX is irrelevant.  If they lied, they lied, and they should stop doing that.

    That's not to say they did lie, there's almost certainly something in the TOS about it, but if they did, then there's a problem.
    ... certain privacy representations are shown at the user interface when launching an app for the first time...  Is the ease and clarity of understanding the fuller implications of terms, references and definitions also a valid question, and that in some cases can unknowingly launching an app trigger irrevocable surrendering of IP and rights...?  Is the obligation also increasingly on the user to assess, monitor and granularly or summarily try and opt out ?  Apple News seems to have the longest and most complete disclosure, although TV & Podcast may also be of particular interest...

    For consideration:
    www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/technology-change-philosopher-1.6703933 (Steve Jobs is referenced)
    www.npr.org/2023/01/26/1151499213/chatgpt-ai-education-cheating-classroom-wharton-school
    edited January 2023
Sign In or Register to comment.