I don't know if this has merits or not, but I'm genuinely confused by that last sentence:<p>>A reasonable fact-finder could find that a reasonable, or even an unsophisticated, consumer, would understand that at least some location information is collected through means other than [‘location history’],” the judge wrote in the recent filing<p>How is that valid? When I picture a standard consumer, I think of my grandpa, who knows technology is a thing, but doesn't understand its inner workings. There is no way he would know that if he turns off location history tracking, that his location history would still be tracked. What's the logic there?