Lawsuit against Google for secret use of Gemini AI in communications

Table of Contents

TL;DR: Lawsuit against Google for secret use of Gemini AI in communications

  • Google is being sued for enabling Gemini AI without users’ consent.
  • The lawsuit alleges violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
  • Gemini AI accesses private data in Gmail, Chat, and Meet without users’ knowledge.
  • The case could have serious legal and financial implications for Google.
  • The situation reignites the debate over privacy and data handling by big tech companies.

Context of the lawsuit against Google

The recent lawsuit against Google has highlighted concerns about privacy and the use of artificial intelligence in digital communications. Filed in a federal court in California, the lawsuit alleges that Google activated its artificial intelligence assistant, Gemini, in apps such as Gmail, Chat, and Meet without users’ explicit consent. This move has been interpreted as a violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which prohibits the recording and monitoring of communications without the consent of all parties involved.

Since its launch, Gemini has been promoted as a tool that can improve the user experience by providing summaries and real-time assistance. However, the “secret” activation of this technology has led plaintiffs to argue that Google has crossed an ethical and legal line. The lawsuit highlights that, although users have the option to disable Gemini, this process requires users to navigate complicated privacy settings, which many may be unwilling to do.

This case fits into a broader context of growing distrust toward large technology companies and their handling of personal data. As technology advances, users’ privacy expectations also evolve, posing significant challenges for companies like Google.

Secret activation of Gemini AI in Google apps

The activation of Gemini AI in Google apps has been a focal point in the lawsuit. According to the allegations, Google had previously allowed users to opt in to activate the artificial intelligence assistant, but in October 2025, the company decided to enable it automatically for all users. This means that, without their knowledge, users were exposed to the collection of private data through their emails, messages, and video conferences.

The lawsuit maintains that this action is not only deceptive, but also infringes the con

security deposit that users place with Google when using its services. Gemini’s ability to access users’ private information, including emails and attachments, raises serious questions about Google’s transparency and its commitment to user privacy.

The activation of Gemini was not adequately communicated to users, which has led many to feel vulnerable and exploited. The lack of a clear notice and the difficulty of disabling the feature have been criticized as manipulative tactics that prioritize the company’s interests over users’ rights.

Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act

The California Invasion of Privacy Act, enacted in 1967, sets strict rules on the recording and monitoring of communications. The lawsuit against Google alleges that the activation of Gemini AI constitutes a direct violation of this law, as it allows data collection without users’ consent. This legislation was designed to protect individuals’ privacy at a time when monitoring technology was not as prevalent as it is today.

Plaintiffs argue that Google has not only violated this law, but has also undermined public trust in digital platforms. The collection of data without consent is a hot-button issue in the debate over privacy in the digital age, and this case could set an important precedent for future legal actions against other technology companies.

A violation of the law could result in significant penalties for Google, as well as increased regulatory pressure on the company and others like it. The situation could also motivate lawmakers to review and update privacy laws to address the new realities of modern technology.

Details of the case Thele v. Google LLC

The case, known as Thele v. Google LLC, has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, who represent a group of affected users, argue that Google engaged in deceptive and unethical practices by enabling Gemini AI without users’ consent.

The court will examine whether Google’s actions constitute a violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and whether users are entitled to compensation for the unauthorized collection of their data. The lawsuit could also open the door to other legal actions against Google and other technology companies that operate in a similar manner.

The details of the case reveal a pattern of behavior that has been criticized by privacy and digital rights experts. The lack oand transparency and the difficulty of disabling data collection features are concerns that resonate among users and privacy advocates.

Consequences of data collection without consent

Collecting data without users’ consent can have serious consequences for both companies and individuals. For Google, the outcome of this lawsuit could translate into significant financial penalties and damage to its reputation. Technology companies that do not respect user privacy may face increased public distrust, which could affect their user base and their position in the market.

For users, unauthorized data collection can result in a violation of their personal privacy and the misuse of their information. This can lead to situations of harassment, identity theft, and other data security-related problems. The lack of control over their own information can make users feel vulnerable and exposed.

In addition, this case could have a domino effect in the tech industry, leading to greater scrutiny and regulation of data collection practices. As more users become aware of their rights and how their data is used, they are likely to demand changes in privacy policies and in the way companies handle personal information.

Google’s response to the lawsuit

Google has responded to the lawsuit by stating that the activation of Gemini AI was an improvement intended to benefit users. The company maintains that users have the option to disable the feature and that they have been provided with the necessary information to do so. However, many critics argue that the way Gemini’s activation was implemented was misleading and that the company has not been sufficiently transparent about its practices.

Google’s response also includes a defense of its commitment to privacy and data security. The company has stated that it takes users’ concerns seriously and that it is willing to work with authorities to address any issues. However, the lack of proactive action to inform users about Gemini’s activation has left many questioning the sincerity of these claims.

Google’s reaction could influence public perception of the company and how future interactions with users develop. Trust is a critical factor in the relationship between technology companies and their customers, and any damage to that trust could have long-term repercussions.

Implications for user prUser privacy

The implications of the lawsuit against Google are profound and could redefine the way technology companies handle user privacy. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could set a precedent that forces companies to be more transparent about their data collection practices and to obtain users’ explicit consent before enabling features that may compromise their privacy.

This case could also motivate other users to file similar lawsuits, which could result in increased pressure on technology companies to review and modify their privacy policies. As awareness of digital privacy grows, users may become more demanding regarding their rights and control over their personal information.

In addition, the case could influence future legislation related to privacy and data protection. Lawmakers could be driven to implement stricter laws that protect consumers and regulate the practices of technology companies, which could change the digital privacy landscape in the coming years.

Additional investigations into Google’s practices

The lawsuit against Google is not an isolated case. The company has faced criticism and scrutiny on multiple occasions for its data collection practices and its handling of privacy. Recently, the European Union has launched investigations into Google’s policies regarding the manipulation of search results and the penalization of certain media outlets.

These investigations reflect growing interest from regulators in how large technology companies operate and how they affect consumers. Pressure on Google to improve transparency and ethics in its data collection practices could intensify as more cases like Gemini AI come to light.

The current situation has also led to a broader debate about the responsibility of technology companies in protecting user privacy. As technology advances, consumers’ expectations about the privacy and security of their data also evolve, posing significant challenges for companies seeking to balance innovation with ethics.

Implications of the lawsuit against Google over the use of Gemini AI

The lawsuit against Google is set within a complex legal context, where privacy laws vary significantly between states and countries. In the U.S., l

the lack of robust federal privacy legislation has allowed companies to operate with great flexibility, but it has also led to an increase in concerns about data protection.

Reactions from users and technology experts

Reactions to the lawsuit have been varied, with many users expressing concern about the lack of control over their personal information. Technology experts have noted that this case could be a catalyst for a broader change in how companies handle privacy and data collection.

Possible consequences for Google and the future of digital privacy

The consequences of this lawsuit could be significant for Google, affecting not only its reputation but also its business model. As users become more aware of their rights and how their data is used, they are likely to demand a greater level of transparency and control, which could change the digital privacy landscape in the future.