Google Class Action Verdict: Jury Awards $425M Over App Data Tracking

Case Overview: A federal jury awarded over $425 million in compensatory damages to approximately 98 million people, finding Google unlawfully collected their app activity data despite user opt-outs.

Consumers Affected: U.S. users who opted out of app activity tracking using the supplemental privacy setting between July 2016 and September 2024.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Millions of cellphone users believed they had restricted Google from monitoring their app activity by selecting privacy options on their devices. A recent federal jury verdict found otherwise, concluding that Google unlawfully continued collecting data from nearly 98 million people across the United States.

After a three-week trial and two days of deliberation, jurors ordered Google to pay $425,651,947 in compensatory damages. The decision closes one of the largest privacy cases in recent years, centered on how the company handled personal information despite user opt-outs.

Google Accused of Ignoring Privacy Settings

Plaintiffs Julian Santiago and Anibal Rodriguez filed the lawsuit in 2020, alleging Google ignored privacy settings linked to “supplemental Web & App Activity.” According to the complaint, the option was supposed to prevent the company from saving activity data from third-party apps.

Instead, plaintiffs said Google continued recording and using that information between July 2016 and September 2024. Attorneys argued that the company profited by storing details of app usage patterns, which were valuable for advertising and analytics, even after consumers had expressly declined tracking.

Jury Rules on Invasion of Privacy

The jury determined Google was liable for invasion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion. Jurors agreed that the plaintiffs and class members did not consent to the collection of their app data, making the practice unlawful.

However, the jury rejected several additional claims. Google was not found liable under California’s Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, which requires a showing of egregious misconduct. Jurors also ruled that plaintiffs did not prove Google acted with malice, oppression, or fraud—standards necessary for punitive damages.

Damages Awarded, But No Profit Disgorgement

While plaintiffs asked the court to order Google to disgorge profits gained from the alleged data collection, jurors did not award that relief. Instead, the verdict focused on compensatory damages meant to account for harm to privacy interests.

Google argued during the trial that the information it stored after the opt-out setting was activated was not tied to specific individuals. Attorneys for the company claimed the data was anonymized and therefore did not violate users’ privacy rights. The jury disagreed in part, concluding that the practice intruded on consumers’ reasonable expectations of privacy.

Nearly 100 Million Users Affected

The class certified in the case covered U.S. users who opted out of app activity tracking using the supplemental privacy setting during the eight-year period at issue. Attorneys estimated that roughly 98 million individuals were included, making this one of the largest certified privacy classes in federal court.

Because the jury declined to order disgorgement, payments to class members will come from the damages award rather than from any profits Google earned. Distribution details will be finalized in subsequent proceedings.

Google Faces Growing List of Privacy Cases

This verdict is the latest in a series of cases targeting Google’s data practices. In April, the company agreed to a $100 million settlement involving allegations of deceptive pricing and geographic targeting in its AdWords platform.

In July, a San Jose jury ordered Google to pay more than $314 million to California Android users who claimed their cellular data was consumed without consent. That case focused on hidden processes that allegedly used bandwidth in the background of smartphones.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Rodriguez, et al. v. Google LLC, et al.
• Case Number: 3:20-cv-04688
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Plaintiffs' Attorney:

• David Boies, Mark C. Mao, Beko Reblitz-Richardson, James W. Lee, Alison L. Anderson, M. Logan Wright and Samantha Parrish (Boies Schiller Flexner LLP)
• Bill Carmody, Shawn J. Rabin, Steven M. Shepard, Alexander P. Frawley and Amanda K. Bonn (Susman Godfrey LLP)
• John A. Yanchunis, Ryan J. McGee and Michael F. Ram (Morgan & Morgan P.A.)

Have you ever opted out of data tracking? Share your experience with your privacy controls below.