In a landmark decision that has sent ripples throughout Silicon Valley and beyond, a federal jury in San Francisco has ordered Google to pay $425.7 million in damages for improperly snooping on nearly 98 million smartphones across the United States. The verdict, handed down on September 3, 2025, concludes a class-action lawsuit that spanned almost a decade and has thrust privacy rights and corporate accountability into the national spotlight.
The case, which covered devices operating between July 1, 2016, and September 23, 2024, alleged that Google collected data from users’ smartphones without their consent—even when users believed their privacy controls shielded them from such tracking. According to the Associated Press and corroborated by OneIndia, the jury found Google in violation of California privacy laws, awarding damages that break down to about $4 per affected device.
The trial, which lasted more than two weeks, saw Google steadfastly denying the allegations. The company maintained that its privacy tools do, in fact, give people control over their data, and that it respects user choices when personalization is turned off. As Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda put it, “This decision misunderstands how our products work, and we will appeal it. Our privacy tools give people control over their data, and when they turn off personalization, we honor that choice.”
But the jury was unconvinced. The plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that Google’s data collection practices were not only unauthorized but also part of a broader strategy to tailor ads to users’ individual interests—resulting in billions of dollars in additional advertising revenue for the tech giant. They framed these ad sales as illegal profiteering, seeking over $30 billion in damages. While the jury ultimately awarded a much lower sum, the outcome was still hailed as a significant victory for privacy advocates.
Attorney John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan, one of the lead lawyers in the case, expressed hope that the verdict would serve as a wake-up call for the entire technology sector. “We hope this result sends a message to the tech industry that Americans will not sit idly by as their information is collected and monetized against their will,” Yanchunis said, according to both the Associated Press and OneIndia. For privacy advocates, the message was clear: user consent and transparency are non-negotiable in the digital age.
The significance of the verdict is heightened by its timing. Just one day prior, Google had narrowly avoided a much more severe outcome in a separate legal battle—a landmark antitrust case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. That case targeted Google’s dominant search engine, which a federal judge ruled was an illegal monopoly. However, rather than ordering a breakup of the company, the judge imposed less drastic remedies, including requiring Google to share some of its search data with competitors.
These back-to-back legal developments underscore the growing scrutiny faced by tech giants over both privacy and competition issues. While Google’s search business escaped the ultimate penalty of being split up, the privacy verdict out of San Francisco serves as a stark reminder that regulators and juries alike are increasingly willing to hold Big Tech accountable for its practices.
From a user perspective, the case touches on a fundamental question: when we adjust settings on our devices to limit data collection, can we trust that our choices are being respected? The jury’s finding suggests that, at least in this instance, the answer was no. The class-action suit alleged that Google continued to track users’ online activity even when they believed they had opted out, using the resulting data to fine-tune targeted advertising and boost its bottom line.
Google, for its part, has doubled down on its defense. In public statements, the company insists that its privacy controls are robust and effective. “Our privacy tools give people control over their data, and when they turn off personalization, we honor that choice,” Castaneda reiterated. The company has already signaled its intention to appeal the verdict, setting the stage for what could be a protracted legal battle.
For the plaintiffs, however, the verdict represents more than just a monetary award—it’s a vindication of the principle that users have a right to control their personal information. As Yanchunis noted, the hope is that the decision will spur other technology companies to reevaluate their own data practices and prioritize user consent and transparency.
The broader tech industry is watching closely. The case comes amid a wave of regulatory and legal challenges to the business models of major technology firms, both in the United States and abroad. In recent years, lawmakers and regulators have expressed growing concern about the ways in which companies collect, use, and profit from consumer data. The San Francisco verdict adds fuel to these debates, highlighting the tension between innovation, profit, and privacy.
It’s worth noting, too, that the damages awarded—while substantial—are a fraction of what the plaintiffs had sought. Lawyers for the class-action estimated that Google’s practices had generated billions of dollars in extra revenue, and they pushed for damages exceeding $30 billion. The jury’s $425.7 million verdict, while significant, is likely to be seen as both a warning and a compromise. For individual users, the payout works out to about $4 per device—a symbolic sum, perhaps, but one that underscores the scale of the alleged violation.
The verdict has also sparked debate about the effectiveness of existing privacy laws and the need for stronger protections. California’s privacy statutes are among the most stringent in the nation, but as this case demonstrates, enforcement is still a challenge. The outcome may prompt lawmakers to consider new regulations or reforms aimed at giving consumers greater control over their data and holding companies to higher standards of accountability.
As Google prepares its appeal, the final outcome remains uncertain. The company’s legal team will likely argue that its privacy controls are sufficient and that the jury misunderstood the technical details of how its products work. Meanwhile, privacy advocates and consumer groups are likely to use the verdict as a rallying cry for further action—both in the courts and in the halls of government.
For now, the message to the tech industry is unmistakable: Americans are increasingly unwilling to accept opaque data practices and unchecked corporate power. Whether the San Francisco verdict marks a turning point in the ongoing battle for digital privacy remains to be seen, but one thing is clear—this story is far from over.
