Privacy groupings are accusing Google of violating Golden State law in its reluctance to supply a direct nexus to its privateness policy on its homepage.
The hunt engine giant is being asked to compose the word "privacy" alongside other information links.
"It's a short, seven missive word and in the human race of privateness it's a very of import word," said Beth Givens of Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.
Google states its policy is easy to happen and it gives "accessible information".
'Not rocket science'
The issue have been edifice impulse followers a series of blogs in the New House Of York Times questioning Google's conformity with the Golden State Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003.
The law necessitates any commercial website that accumulates personal information about its users to "conspicuously post its privateness policy on its website".
Privacy arrangements have got written a joint missive to Google
Google keeps that it already makes and that its privateness policy can be establish by going through its hunt engine or by clicking on "About Google".
In a conference call, a alliance of privateness arrangements told journalists that was not good adequate and it have written to Google.
The groupings involved include the Electronic Privacy Information Centre, the World Privacy Forum, Consumer Action, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of Northern California.
Ms Givens, of Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, said: "I went through the exercising of determination [Google's] privateness policy and it's not easy. It's not intuitive and it's not a couple of clicks. You have got to work at it.
"The Google privateness policy black and whites out to five pages. It's something I believe they would be proud to point to. It's a brawny privateness policy."
Mark Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Centre in American Capital said: "This is not rocket science. The word 'privacy' is not going to take up a batch of space on the Google homepage."
The groupings told the BBC that authorship to Google publicly was not an exercising in naming and shaming but aimed at getting Google to move in conformity with the law.
"We desire to open up a constructive duologue with Google," said Pam Dixon of the World Privacy Forum.
"I believe this is a sensible approach. We have got sent a sensible letter. It is a missive without a 'gotcha' quality."
Mr Rotenberg added: "Our hope is that this tin be quickly resolved."
Google acknowledges that privateness information should be easy to entree and understand, and states it believes it fulfils that requirement.
In its statement, the company said: "In improver to offering a Privacy Centre with our privateness policy and other of import information, we also created a YouTube privateness transmission channel with pictures explaining our patterns and products."
The company states it "ran an advertisement political campaign to pull consumers to our privateness information, posted respective blogs that explicate our privateness patterns in item and posted detailed frequently-asked questions to assist consumers understand the complex facets of privacy."