On Monday, the judge also dismissed Google’s argument that there is substantial ground for a difference of opinion regarding COPPA’s actual knowledge requirement. Google had pointed to differing rulings from district courts in California and New Mexico, but Judge Pitts noted that the company had oversimplified these decisions by not considering the specific factual circumstances in each case.
Judge Pitts also rejected Google’s second question regarding the alleged misappropriation of personal information and whether it constitutes a loss of “property” sufficient to confer standing under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Google argued that a difference of opinion exists on this issue in district courts and that the lack of binding Ninth Circuit precedent warranted interlocutory appeal. However, Judge Pitts stated that such differences were not enough to warrant departure from the normal appellate process and could be addressed through the standard appellate review following final judgment.
