Android users lost their lawsuit claiming that Google “violated its own privacy policy by disclosing their names, email addresses and account locations to third parties without permission, to boost advertising revenue” according to Reuters.  On July 15, 2015 US Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal (Northern District of California) in the case In Re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litigation granted Google’s motion to dismiss with this first paragraph since he states in a footnote that the “Plaintiffs offer no evidence that any personal information was ever transmitted from any Android device to any third-party developer, summary judgment in Google’s favor would be required”:

You might think that after three years of complaints, motions to dismiss, orders on motions to dismiss, leave to amend, amended complaints and more, at least the fundamental question of Plaintiffs’ Article III standing to pursue this suit would be settled. You might think that, but you would be wrong.

According to the Order this nationwide class action was “brought by Plaintiffs… against Google on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States that purchased at least one paid Android application through the Android Market and/or Google Play Store between February 1, 2009 and May 31, 2014.”

Magistrate Judge Grewal ruled that the “Plaintiffs fail to satisfy all three prongs, they lack standing to pursue their claims”:

First, Plaintiffs have no evidence of concrete, particularized and actual or imminent “injury-in-fact” because they no longer allege that the battery-and-bandwidth -using transmission containing personal information ever occurs from Plaintiffs’ phones.

Second, Plaintiffs’ claim of battery and bandwidth depletion has no nexus to Google’s alleged breach or unfair competition.

Third, any injury is not redressable by a favorable decision. No past or future change to merchant queries or receipt of information would alter the battery or bandwidth consumed in purchasing an app.

This lawsuit was originally filed in 2012 when Google changed its Privacy Policy and may yet be challenged by appealing this Order.