Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—Tex. App.: No general or specific jurisdiction for Texas over Google in deceptive practices lawsuit, (Jan 10, 2025)

By Seth Abrams, J.D., M.A.

Due to the lack of personal jurisdiction, the action, which alleged deceptive data collection practices by Google, was dismissed by the appellate court.

A Texas state appellate court dismissed a lawsuit brought by the State of Texas against Google LLC for lack of personal jurisdiction. The lawsuit alleged violations under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) related to data collection in the Chrome Browser’s Incognito Mode and Google’s collection of private location information. The court held that there was no general jurisdiction over Google because Google is not “essentially at home” in Texas. The court held that there was no specific jurisdiction over Google due to the failure to allege a related “activity or occurrence” that took place in Texas. As a result, it dismissed the State of Texas’ claims against Google (Google LLC v. State Of Texas, No. 13-23-00114-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 9, 2025)).

Background. In 2022, the State of Texas sued Google in the Texas District Court for Victoria County for violations of the DTPA. It specifically contended that “by deceiving Texans and profiting off their confusion... [Google] systematically misled, deceived, and withheld material facts from users in Texas about how and why their behavior is tracked and how to stop Google from monetizing their personal data.” The State of Texas also accused Google of the deception of Texas residents regarding the potential disabling of location tracking. It also asserted that Google could collect “Texas users browser history, even when the users believe that they are not being tracked by Google [in Incognito Mode.]” According to the State of Texas, Google “lies about how it tracks and collects data about its Texas users, and Texas residents are unaware of this deception.”

General jurisdiction. General personal jurisdiction requires that a defendant be “essentially at home” in the forum state. It permits the suing of a defendant “on any and all claims against it, wherever in the world the claims may arise.” There is no need to “tie the defendant’s acts with the plaintiff’s claims” and the only focus is on the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.

To combat the assertion of general jurisdiction, Google contended that its operations in Texas are only a small percentage of its operations nationwide and worldwide. It employs 58,500 people in California and 169,000 worldwide, contrasted to 2,400 employees in Texas. Even when considering temporary employees and others (which raises the number to 5,500), Google argued that this does not support the conclusion that it is “essentially at home” in Texas. In addition, it derives only 4% of its worldwide revenue from Texas. It is also undisputed that Google is not incorporated in Texas and does not maintain its principal place of business in Texas.

The court noted that simply conducting business in a state does not give rise to general jurisdiction. It concluded that it was not persuaded that “appellant’s contacts with Texas are sufficient to find under guiding precedent that Google is ‘essentially at home’ in Texas.” As a result, it found that there is no general jurisdiction over Google in the instant case.

Specific jurisdiction. Specific personal jurisdiction “focuses on the defendant’s connections with the state and its relationship to the plaintiff’s claims.” As part of the analysis of specific jurisdiction, the court looks to the relatedness doctrine, which “requires a nexus between the defendant’s contacts and the litigation and the forum.” Google asserted that “even a ‘flood’ of purposeful contacts with a forum state is irrelevant if ‘the suit’ does not ‘arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” To prevail, the State of Texas needed to show a “substantial connection” between Google’s contacts and “the operative facts of the litigation.”

The court found that the State of Texas did not specifically plead allegations that the “operative facts of the litigation are related to appellant’s contacts with Texas.” It held that the State of Texas has not alleged that any of Google’s Texas employees made any of the misleading statements at issue in the suit. The direction of the alleged tortious conduct all occurred outside of Texas. The court held that the State of Texas did not identify an “activity or occurrence... that takes place in Texas.” As a result, the court could not conclude that Google’s alleged conduct occurring outside of Texas was sufficient to confer specific jurisdiction over Google in this case. As a result of the lack of personal jurisdiction, the court reversed the trial court and dismissed the matter in its entiriety.

The Case is No. 13-23-00114-CV.

Judge: Tijerina, J.

Attorneys: Robyn Bigelow Hargrove (Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP) for Google LLC. Warren Kenneth Paxton Jr., Attorney General of Texas, for The State of Texas.

Companies: Google LLC

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices TexasNews