New lawsuit: Why do Android phones mysteriously exchange 260MB a month with Google via cellular data when they're not even in use?

Ad giant sued after mobile allo­wan­ces eaten by hidden trans­fers

 

Google on Thurs­day was sued for alle­gedly stea­ling Android users’ cellu­lar data allo­wan­ces through unap­pro­ved, undis­clo­sed trans­mis­si­ons to the web giant’s servers.

The lawsuit, Taylor et al v. Google [PDF], was filed in a US fede­ral district court in San Jose on behalf of four plain­tiffs based in Illi­nois, Iowa, and Wiscon­sin in the hope the case will be certi­fied by a judge as a class action.

The compla­int contends that Google is using Android users’ limi­ted cellu­lar data allo­wan­ces without permis­sion to trans­mit infor­ma­tion about those indi­vi­du­als that’s unre­la­ted to their use of Google servi­ces.

Data sent over Wi-Fi is not at issue, nor is data sent over a cellu­lar connec­tion in the absence of Wi-Fi when an Android user has chosen to use a network-connec­ted appli­ca­tion. What concerns the plain­tiffs is data sent to Google’s servers that isn’t the result of deli­be­rate inter­ac­tion with a mobile device – we’re talking passive or back­ground data trans­fers via cell network, here.

«Google desig­ned and imple­men­ted its Android opera­ting system and apps to extract and trans­mit large volu­mes of infor­ma­tion between Plain­tiffs’ cellu­lar devi­ces and Google using Plain­tiffs’ cellu­lar data allo­wan­ces, » the compla­int claims. «Google’s misap­pro­pri­a­tion of Plain­tiffs’ cellu­lar data allo­wan­ces through passive trans­fers occurs in the back­ground, does not result from Plain­tiffs’ direct enga­ge­ment with Google’s apps and proper­ties on their devi­ces, and happens without Plain­tiffs’ consent.»

Android users have to accept four agre­e­ments to parti­ci­pate in the Google ecosys­tem: Terms of Service; the Privacy Policy; the Mana­ged Google Play Agre­e­ment; and the Google Play Terms of Service. None of these, the court filing contends, disclose that Google spends users’ cellu­lar data allo­wan­ces for these back­ground trans­fers.

To support the alle­ga­ti­ons, the plain­tiff’s coun­sel tested a new Samsung Galaxy S7 phone running Android, with a signed-in Google Account and default setting, and found that when left idle, without a Wi-Fi connec­tion, the phone «sent and recei­ved 8.88 MB/day of data, with 94 per cent of those commu­ni­ca­ti­ons occur­ring between Google and the device.»

The device, stati­o­nary, with all apps closed, trans­fer­red data to Google about 16 times an hour, or about 389 times in 24 hours. Assu­ming even half of that data is outgoing, Google would receive about 4.4MB per day or 130MB per month in this manner per device subject to the same test condi­ti­ons.

Putting worries of what could be in that data to one side, based on an average price of $8 per GB of data in the US, that 130MB works out to about $1 lost to Google data gathe­ring per month – if the device is discon­nec­ted from Wi-Fi the entire time and does all its passive trans­mis­sion over a cellu­lar connec­tion.

An iPhone with Apple’s Safari brow­ser open in the back­ground trans­mits only about a tenth of that amount to Apple, accor­ding to the compla­int.

Much of the trans­mit­ted data, it’s clai­med, are log files that record network avai­la­bi­lity, open apps, and opera­ting system metrics. Google could have delayed trans­mit­ting these files until a Wi-Fi connec­tion was avai­la­ble, but chose instead to spend users’ cell data so it could gather data at all hours.

Vander­bilt Univer­sity Profes­sor Douglas C. Schmidt perfor­med a simi­lar study in 2018 – except that the Chrome brow­ser was open – and found that Android devi­ces made 900 passive trans­fers in 24 hours.

Under active use, Android devi­ces trans­fer about 11.6MB of data to Google servers daily, or 350MB per month, it’s clai­med, which is about half the amount trans­fer­red by an iPhone.

The compla­int char­ges that Google conducts these undis­clo­sed data trans­fers to further its adver­ti­sing busi­ness, sending «tokens» that iden­tify users for targe­ted adver­ti­sing and preload ads that gene­rate reve­nue even if they’re never displayed.

«Users often never view these pre-loaded ads, even though their cellu­lar data was alre­ady consu­med to down­load the ads from Google, » the legal filing claims. «And because these pre-loads can count as ad impres­si­ons, Google is paid for trans­mit­ting the ads.»

The Regis­ter asked Google to respond to the lawsuit’s alle­ga­ti­ons. It decli­ned to comment.

We also asked Marc Gold­berg, Chief Reve­nue Offi­cer at ad analy­tics biz Method Media Inte­lli­gence whet­her prelo­a­ded ads ever get coun­ted as billa­ble events when not shown.

«Yes they could be, » Gold­berg said in an email to The Regis­ter. »It is impor­tant for adver­ti­sers to unders­tand their billa­ble event. What are they paying for? Auction won? Ads Served? Ads rende­red? These simple ques­ti­ons need to be asked and unders­tood."

The lawsuit seeks to reco­ver the fair market value of the co-opted cellu­lar data and the «reaso­na­ble value of the cellu­lar data used by Google to extract and deli­ver infor­ma­tion that bene­fi­ted Google, » dating back years to whene­ver this prac­tice began.