What specific data-practices allegations were made in lawsuits against DuckDuckGo?
Executive summary
Reporting about DuckDuckGo since 2022 centers on two related claims: that the company’s products sometimes allowed telemetry or third‑party trackers to communicate with Microsoft domains, and that DuckDuckGo’s marketing overstated the breadth of its privacy protections — but the available sources do not document a widely reported, successful class‑action lawsuit that lays out detailed, adjudicated data‑practices findings against DuckDuckGo [1] [2] [3].
1. What plaintiffs and critics alleged: hidden or indirect tracking
Investigations by independent researchers and subsequent press coverage alleged that DuckDuckGo’s browser did not fully block all third‑party data flows in every situation, enabling scripts placed by Microsoft on certain sites to continue communicating with Microsoft domains such as Bing and LinkedIn while the DuckDuckGo Privacy Browser was used, a finding first publicized by researcher Zach Edwards and summarized in WIRED [1] [3]. Coverage framed this as an “indirect” or “hidden” data‑practice because it contradicted how many users understood DuckDuckGo’s “we don’t track you” marketing [3] [1].
2. Advertising and claims‑based challenges: the NAD review and the limits of marketing language
The National Advertising Division (NAD) examined DuckDuckGo’s privacy statements in online ads and concluded the company had substantiation for many claims, but cautioned that some phrasing could imply broader protections than DuckDuckGo actually provided — specifically that protections would follow a user “no matter where the internet takes you,” language the NAD warned could be misleading [2]. DuckDuckGo supplied audits and evidence of blocking technologies to support its advertising claims, and NAD’s review stopped short of declaring outright deception, instead urging more precise wording [2].
3. How those technical findings translated into legal complaints in the public record
The sources provided link the technical findings and critical reporting to consumer distrust and legal scrutiny, but they do not show a landmark, adjudicated consumer fraud verdict against DuckDuckGo laying out detailed data‑practice violations; rather, reporting describes controversy, criticism, and calls for regulatory oversight after Edwards’s findings and media coverage [1] [3] [4]. Some outlets and blogs characterize this as a privacy “scandal” and raised the possibility of legal exposure, but the available material documents investigations and advertising challenges more than a concluded lawsuit against DuckDuckGo [4] [5].
4. What lawsuits cited in the reporting actually targeted — and what they did not
Several pieces in the dataset discuss lawsuits about incognito/private‑mode tracking and big tech — notably a 2020 lawsuit accusing Google of collecting data in Incognito mode — which DuckDuckGo used as contrast in criticizing competitors, but that suit was against Google, not DuckDuckGo [6]. The reporting uses such examples to frame the broader marketplace of privacy litigation, but does not provide source material showing a parallel, large‑scale class action against DuckDuckGo that alleges a defined list of data‑practices violations with judicial findings [6] [2].
5. DuckDuckGo’s responses and alternative viewpoints
DuckDuckGo has disputed that the Microsoft‑domain traffic undermined its search product and has emphasized audits and blocking technologies to defend its advertising claims; the NAD review found the company substantiated many of its privacy claims while advising caution on hyperbolic phrasing [1] [2]. Alternative perspectives range from watchdogs and security researchers who say the incidents reveal unavoidable limits in escaping “surveillance capitalism” to industry defenders who argue DDG still offers stronger protections than major rivals; the sources make clear both positions exist [1] [4] [3].
6. Bottom line and open evidence gaps
The concrete allegations shown in the reporting are: that DuckDuckGo’s browser let certain Microsoft tracking scripts communicate back to Microsoft domains in specific circumstances (a technical, researcher‑driven allegation) and that some of DuckDuckGo’s advertising language risked overstating protections (an advertising‑standards allegation) — both documented in the sources provided [1] [2] [3]. What the present record supplied does not show is a prominent, adjudicated class‑action decision enumerating precise, legally proven data‑practice violations by DuckDuckGo; absent further court filings or judgments in the provided material, that remains an evidentiary gap [2] [1].