Steve Marshall announces $7.6 million settlement with Google to protect consumer location privacy
On Monday, Attorney General Steve Marshall announced that Alabama, along with 39 other states, has reached a $391.5 million multistate settlement with Google over its location tracking practices relating to Google Account settings. Alabama will receive $7.6 million from the settlement. “Google bases its business upon the collection of personal data, including location tracking,” said AG Marshall. “Google uses the personal and behavioral data it collects to build detailed user profiles and target ads on behalf of its advertising customers. Location data is among the most sensitive and valuable information Google collects. Even a limited amount of location data can expose a person’s identity and routines and can be used to infer personal details. Unfortunately, until now, the tech giant has failed to adequately safeguard user location privacy.” Attorney General Steve Marshall Announces 40-State Settlement with Google to Protect Consumer Location Privacy https://t.co/JwyzvcIogn pic.twitter.com/kAGWK6TVEg — Attorney General Steve Marshall (@AGSteveMarshall) November 14, 2022 “As a result of our multistate settlement, Google will be required to allow users to have more control of their own information, to easily turn on or off tracking or sharing, and Google must make their account settings more accessible, transparent, and understandable,” Marshall explained. “They must provide links to clear and understandable information, and they must end any sharing of precise location data with third parties without express consent of the user. This historic settlement is an important milestone in restoring consumer online privacy.” The attorneys general opened the Google investigation following a 2018 Associated Press article that revealed Google “records your movements even when you explicitly tell it not to.” The article focused on two Google account settings: Location History and Web & App Activity. Location History is “off” unless a user turns on the setting, but Web & App Activity, a separate account setting, is automatically “on” when users set up a Google account, including all Android phone users. As detailed in the settlement, the attorneys general found that Google violated state consumer protection laws by misleading consumers about its location-tracking practices since at least 2014. Specifically, Google caused users to be confused about the scope of the Location History setting, the fact that the Web & App Activity setting existed and also collected location information, and the extent to which consumers who use Google products and services could limit Google’s location tracking by adjusting their account and device settings. The settlement requires Google to: • Show additional information to users whenever they turn a location-related account setting “on” or “off;” • Make key information about location tracking unavoidable for users (i.e., not hidden); • Give users detailed information about the types of location data Google collects and how it’s used at an enhanced “Location Technologies” webpage. The settlement also limits Google’s use and storage of certain types of location information and requires Google account controls to be more user-friendly. Google still faces an anti-trust lawsuit from the U.S. Justice Department. Alabama was joined by attorneys general of Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Marshall was re-elected to his second term last week with 67.91% of the vote defeating Democratic nominee Wendell Major (32%). Marshall was the longtime district attorney in Marshall County prior to his appointment as AG in 2017. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Artemis set to launch just after midnight
The National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) announced Monday that its Artemis launch teams have been called to stations. The countdown has officially begun towards a launch for Artemis I on Wednesday, November 16th, during a two-hour launch window beginning at 12:04 a.m. CST. The Artemis I mission is unmanned; but is a test of the Artemis spacecraft, which will be carried into space by the Space Launch System (SLS) – the most powerful rocket ever made. The Space Launch System engineering is headquartered at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. The SLS, like the Space Shuttle and Apollo missions before it, will be launched from NASA’s Kennedy Space Flight Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Artemis will be the vehicle that will take man back to the Moon after a 50-year absence, including the first woman and first African-American to walk on the Moon. NASA plans to eventually establish a permanent manned presence on the Moon and plans for a manned mission to Mars late in the 2030s. The Artemis I mission had been planned for September but had to be scrubbed several times due to problems with a fuel line not working properly on the SLS. Then in late September had to be taken off of the launchpad and sent back to the assembly building due to Hurricane Ian. The ship is now repaired, and Florida is sufficiently recovered from the hurricanes that NASA can operate efficiently. The SLS looks like an Apollo-era Saturn V rocket with two Space Shuttle-era solid rocket boosters attached, and that is not that far off from what it is, but it will allow NASA to carry larger payloads farther than ever before. For decades since Apollo, manned space flight has been limited to low Earth orbit with the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. Artemis will make manned space flight beyond Earth orbit not only possible but potentially routine. Artemis I will fly to the Moon, orbit, and then return to Earth. If all goes well with the unmanned missions, NASA could potentially launch a manned Artemis mission as early as 2024. The moon base mission is tentatively scheduled for 2028. Thousands of Alabamians, both at NASA and its many contractors, have worked for years to make this mission a reality. You can watch the mission live on NASA TV. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Coast Guard members still fighting vaccine mandate encouraged to consider joining class action lawsuit
Members of the U.S. Coast Guard who sought a religious accommodation request (RAR) from the U.S. Department of Defense COVID-19 vaccine mandate and were denied are encouraged to consider joining a class action lawsuit filed by Thomas More Society. The Chicago-based nonprofit legal organization filed a class action lawsuit against the Coast Guard, Stone et al. v. Mayorkas, et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on September 16. The lawsuit challenges the Coast Guard’s broad denial of RARs to the DOD mandate. The plaintiffs are facing involuntary discharge because they argue they are being forced to take an experimental drug that was developed with or tested on aborted fetal cell lines, which they argue violates their religious conscience and is contrary to their faith. According to court filings, the Coast Guard hasn’t disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs, it’s just issued across-the-board denials of their RARs. The Department of Defense continues to maintain that the mandate is necessary for military readiness and that U.S. district court judges don’t have jurisdiction to oversee military policy. In several cases in several jurisdictions, all federal judges have disagreed with the DOD’s position, each handing different military branches ongoing losses in court. A DOD Inspector General also found that U.S. military officials in all branches violated federal law by issuing widespread denials of RARs. Still, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a memorandum to initiate separation proceedings to active duty and reserve members who refused to take the vaccine and who filed an RAR that was denied. One plaintiff in the class, Alaric Stone, says he’s suing because he joined the Coast Guard because of his faith and “Now I find myself in a situation where I am being forced to choose between my faith and service to my country; it’s truly heartbreaking. “I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and religious freedom is a cornerstone of our Constitutional guarantees.” Two weeks after TMS filed its class action lawsuit, the Coast Guard agreed to defer its Inactive Status List transfer date to December 1 for all 122 putative class member reservists who’d been given an October 1 transfer date. The agreement will give them temporary relief, including allowing them to continue receiving an income while the court considers pending motions in the case. TMS Senior Counsel Stephen Crampton notes it’s only temporary and only applies to a few out of many in dire situations. “We continue to hear every day from additional service members facing imminent discharge or transfer orders,” Crampton said. “These agreements with the Department of Justice underscore the serious and irreparable harm that Coast Guard service members continue to face and point to the need for court- The Coast Guard “has made threats, and carried out threats, to punish service members” who apply for RARs, including denying them schooling, promotion, and assignments, he said. They’ve been “formally reprimanded and threatened with involuntary discharge,” even after the latest Centers for Disease Control prevention guidelines were issued, “which recommend no longer differentiating based on a person’s vaccination status, Crampton said. TMS also notes that while the Coast Guard has insisted on “forcing these brave and principled service members out,” it’s also acknowledged that “it faces an urgent shortfall in personnel and recruiting. “The actions of both the government and the Coast Guard in this situation are ridiculous as well as illogical,” Crampton said. The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that denying RARs due to “speculation” and “conjecture” about hypothetical future harms, another argument used by the DOD and military branches to enforce the mandate, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment. In order to accommodate the increasing number of service personnel in need of legal assistance who continue to be impacted by the Coast Guard’s refusal to approve RARs, TMS created a portal for service members to use to be considered to join its class action lawsuit. The portal states, “If you are a member of the Coast Guard who sought a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, we encourage you (but you are not obligated) to fill out the form on this page. If you have received a specific date of discharge or date of transfer to the Inactive Status List (ISL), please specify.” The class action names Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of the Department of Defense Lloyd Austin, Commandant of the Coast Guard Linda Fagan, and Assistant Commandant for Human Resources Coast Guard Brian Penoyer as defendants. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Jimmy O’Neal Spencer sentenced to death for 2018 triple homicide
A man convicted of killing three people, including a 7-year-old boy, in robberies that netted $600 was sentenced to death on Monday by a judge who called him “a reason for the death penalty to exist.” A judge handed down the death sentence to Jimmy O’Neal Spencer in accordance with the jury’s decision last month, news outlets reported. Spencer, who had been on parole at the time of the killings, was found guilty of capital murder in the 2018 deaths of Martha Dell Reliford, 65; Marie Kitchens Martin, 74; and Martin’s great-grandson, Colton Ryan Lee, 7. The women were killed in separate robberies that netted about $600, prosecutors said, and the boy was killed because he was a witness. “It’s ordered and judged by this court that you be sentenced to death, and you deserve death. If there ever was a reason for the death penalty to exist in this state, you’re it,” Marshall County Circuit Judge Tim Riley told Spencer, according to WHNT. The judge was bound to the jury’s death sentence decision because lawmakers in 2017 ended the ability of a judge to override a jury’s sentence recommendation in capital murder cases. Spencer and the victims’ families spoke to the court before the death sentence was pronounced. “He belongs in hell,” Nellie Wray, Reliford’s sister, said, according to al.com. “He killed a baby and two innocent women.” Spencer had been paroled eight months before the slayings. He was released after serving 28 years of a life sentence for a variety of convictions, including burglary and assault. Evidence over four days of trial showed Spencer did well initially after being released from prison but returned to crime after losing a job. Politicians cited Spencer’s case in pushing to make the state’s parole process tougher, and the rate of paroles has dropped sharply since then. Spencer told the court he would go back and change what happened if he could. “I am sorry about what happened. There’s no way I can change it. If I could, I would.” During the trial, investigators played an audio recording of Spencer saying he went to the houses in July 2018 to steal money and committed the killings to avoid leaving witnesses. He first went to the home of Reliford, whom he had met through a relative, and hit her in the head with a hatchet, authorities said. Worried the woman wasn’t dead, Spencer cut her throat with a kitchen knife before fleeing with about $600. Days later, after the money ran out, he went to the home of Martin, Reliford’s neighbor, and strangled her with a dog leash before cutting her throat, authorities said. Spencer bashed the child’s head with a hammer to prevent the boy from identifying him and left with $13, authorities said. While the defense challenged Spencer’s mental competency, a judge ruled he was able to stand trial. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Solar farms in 3 states cited for environmental violations
Four companies that developed solar energy facilities in Alabama, Idaho, and Illinois have agreed to pay a total of $1.3 million for violating construction permits and rules for handling groundwater, authorities said Monday. A statement by the Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency said the companies used a common construction contractor. In each case, the government alleged companies failed to take steps to control runoff water. In Alabama and Idaho, sediment from construction sites got into nearby waterways, the government said. The cases involved AL Solar A LLC, which built a solar farm near LaFayette, Alabama; American Falls Solar LLC, which owned a site near American Falls, Idaho; Prairie State Solar LLC, owner of a development in Perry County, Illinois; and Big River Solar LLC, which had a development in White County, Illinois, according to the statement. The solar farm owners are all subsidiaries of large international companies, the government said. AL Solar will pay $500,000 in civil penalties to state and federal regulators, it said, and American Falls will pay a civil penalty of $416,500 to the federal government. The Illinois sites remain under construction, and officials there have to follow the rules for the remainder of the work. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Forty states win $391.5M privacy suit against Google over location data sold to advertisers
Forty states won a combined $391.5 million settlement with Google over location tracking practices. The group of attorneys general filed the complaint after the Associated Press exposed that Google is collecting personal and behavioral location data and selling it to advertisers. Location history in Google settings was off unless it was turned on by the user, but the web & app activity setting is automatically turned on for users. Because of that, the attorneys general believed that Google was in violation of state consumer protection laws because it was misleading customers about its location tracking. They claimed the location history setting caused users to be confused about how all-encompassing that setting was on users’ phones. “For years, Google has prioritized profit over the privacy of South Carolinians who use Google products and services,” said South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, whose state will receive $7,813,840.87 from the settlement. “Consumer privacy is one of the most important issues facing consumers right now, and our office will continue to do its part in ensuring the protection of our citizens in this way.” The attorneys general of Oregon and Nebraska led the settlement negotiations, assisted by Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. “Consumer privacy is one of my office’s top priorities,” said Oregon attorney general Ellen Rosenblum, whose state will receive $14.8 million from the settlement. “That’s why it’s so important to me that Oregon played a key role in this settlement. Until we have comprehensive privacy laws, companies will continue to compile large amounts of our personal data for marketing purposes with few controls.” The final settlement was also joined by Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin. “Consumers were deceived by Google as to when their location was being tracked and how that information was used,” said Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, whose state will receive $19.5 million under the settlement. “With the proliferation of smart devices that collect increased data on its users, today’s announcement highlights the need for updated privacy laws that more effectively protect consumers.” The settlement includes an agreement that Google will begin showing additional information on location-tracking settings on an account, making key information about location tracking clear and unavoidable to users and requires Google to give users detailed information about the types of location data that Google is collecting. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
