Late last year Google announced plans to buy US-based fitness company Fitbit for $2.94 billion, raising concerns about the tech giants plans for the health data Fitbit currently holds on roughly 28 million people worldwide.

A group of leading economists from Monash University have spoken out against the acquisition before European antitrust regulators.

“Sensitive health data held by Fitbit can be added to users’ personal profile Google aggregates from its other services, such as emails, maps and online searches,” Professor Chongwoo Choe said.

“While Google says it would not use Fitbit data for advertising purposes, this doesn’t rule out Google’s use of this data in other markets, such as health care.”

Associate Professor Zhijun Chen said Google’s bid for Fitbit is consistent with its strategy to expand into health care, life sciences and insurance.

“By connecting Fitbit data with user data from Google’s Cloud Healthcare API, Google can build a more comprehensive patient profile and offer more personalised health care,” he said.

The researchers argue that, on one hand, access to richer sets of data can enable firms to tailor their products and service offerings in a more personalised way.

On the other hand, enhanced personalisation and better targeting strategies can increase the firm’s capacity to engage in price discrimination and consumer exploitation.

Prof. Choe says Google’s proposed acquisition of Fitbit is not just about a gadget being brought into Google’s ecosystem, but one that involves highly sensitive data that is likely to harm consumers in health insurance, medical services, and even labour markets.

“All too often, academics and policymakers look back and lament a failure to intervene more decisively and bemoan their hopeful reliance on remedies that just don’t work,” Prof. Choe said.

“Blocking the merger doesn’t solve all problems related to health data, but it avoids amplifying already existing problems.”

Would you want Google to have easy access to your health data? Are you worried that such a move could lead to higher health insurance prices and price discrimination?