In a dramatic turn for Silicon Valley, Google and its parent company Alphabet are facing the financial and reputational consequences of a landmark privacy lawsuit in the United States. On October 23, 2025, a federal jury ruled that Google must pay $425 million in damages to users for what the court deemed significant violations of consumer privacy. But the story doesn’t end there: plaintiffs are now pushing for an even heftier sum, seeking $2.36 billion in what they describe as Google’s “illegally obtained” profits, according to court documents and reporting from Reuters and other outlets.
This legal saga began in 2020, when a group of American consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Google, alleging the tech giant had secretly collected app activity data from millions of users—even those who had disabled account tracking features. The case zeroed in on a setting called “Web & App Activity,” which, plaintiffs argued, Google used to bypass user privacy expectations and harvest personal data from mobile devices for nearly eight years. The plaintiffs contended that these actions violated explicit privacy guarantees and consumer trust.
As detailed in court filings, the jury ultimately found Google responsible for two out of three privacy-related claims brought against it. The plaintiffs, representing a class of up to 98 million users and 174 million devices, had initially sought damages exceeding $31 billion. While the $425 million award is substantial, the consumer group insists it falls short of addressing what they call “ongoing and irreparable harm” caused by Google’s practices. In their words, as cited by Reuters, the damages verdict is “clearly insufficient to address the ongoing, irreparable harm that Google’s conduct continues to inflict.”
At the heart of the dispute is the allegation that Google’s data collection was both covert and in direct contradiction to user preferences. The jury’s findings, as summarized in the court record and echoed by the plaintiffs’ legal team, were unequivocal: “The jury found that Google’s conduct was extremely offensive, harmful, and without user consent.” This sentiment has fueled demands for the additional $2.36 billion, which the plaintiffs describe as a “conservative estimate” of Google’s alleged illicit profits from the data in question.
Google, for its part, has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing. In statements released after the verdict, the company emphasized that the data it collected was anonymized and that its privacy tools provide users with meaningful control over their information. Google also argued that its data collection practices were transparent and that users had the ability to manage their privacy settings at any time. The company’s legal team has maintained, “The data we collected was anonymized, and our privacy tools give users the ability to control their data.”
Despite the jury’s decision, Google has not made any significant changes to its privacy disclosures or data collection methods, according to the plaintiffs. This ongoing status quo is a major point of contention for user advocates, who argue that the court’s ruling should prompt immediate reforms. “Despite the ruling, Google has not changed its privacy disclosures or data collection practices,” the plaintiffs asserted in their most recent court filings.
The legal battle has also highlighted the complexity of modern data privacy. Google’s defense has centered on the idea that user expectations and experiences with its products are highly individualized. On Wednesday, the company asked U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco to decertify the class of 98 million users, contending that claims depend on individual factors such as app usage and user expectations. Google further urged the judge to overturn the verdict, arguing that there are no common issues uniting the class.
Judge Seeborg now faces the task of determining whether Google must hand over the additional $2.36 billion in alleged profits. The plaintiffs argue that this sum represents only a fraction of the true financial benefit Google reaped from its contested data collection. They contend that Google’s actions not only violated privacy, but also gave the company an unfair competitive edge in the digital advertising market—a point that echoes broader regulatory concerns about Big Tech’s dominance.
It’s worth noting that the roots of this case are intertwined with broader antitrust scrutiny of Google. The original 2020 lawsuit, as reported by multiple sources, accused Google of monopolistic practices that harmed both competition and consumers. While the current class action focuses on privacy, the underlying narrative is one of a tech giant allegedly leveraging its market position to the detriment of user rights and industry fairness.
Google’s announcement that it will not appeal the court’s decision is a striking development. In the high-stakes world of tech litigation, appeals are almost a matter of course, especially when the sums involved are so large. The company’s decision to forgo an appeal could signal an intention to put the matter to rest—or it could reflect a strategic calculation about the risks of continued legal exposure and public scrutiny.
The case also raises broader questions about the effectiveness of privacy settlements in deterring future misconduct. While $425 million is a significant penalty by any measure, the plaintiffs’ push for more than five times that amount underscores their belief that only substantial financial consequences will prompt meaningful change. As one observer put it, “The damages verdict is clearly insufficient to address the ongoing, irreparable harm that Google’s conduct continues to inflict.”
Meanwhile, Google’s insistence that its privacy tools are robust and its data collection practices above board is unlikely to quell the growing chorus of critics. Lawmakers, regulators, and privacy advocates have all called for stronger oversight of tech giants, arguing that voluntary compliance and self-regulation have failed to protect consumers from invasive data practices. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future class actions and regulatory actions against not just Google, but the entire technology sector.
For everyday users, the case is a reminder of the often-invisible ways in which their data is collected, analyzed, and monetized. While tech companies tout the benefits of personalization and convenience, the risks to privacy and autonomy remain ever-present. The ongoing legal proceedings against Google are likely to fuel further debate about where to draw the line between innovation and intrusion.
With Judge Seeborg’s decision on the additional $2.36 billion still pending, all eyes remain on the courtroom. The final outcome will not only determine the financial fate of one of the world’s most powerful companies, but may also shape the future contours of digital privacy for millions of users. The stakes, both for Google and for the broader public, could hardly be higher.
