In a landmark verdict that could reshape the way tech giants handle user privacy, a federal jury in San Francisco has ordered Google to pay $425 million for breaching the privacy of millions of users who had switched off a prominent tracking feature in their accounts. The decision, delivered on September 3, 2025, marks one of the largest privacy-related penalties ever imposed on a technology company in the United States, and it has sent ripples through the digital world.
The case, certified as a class action by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, centered on allegations that Google continued to collect, save, and use data from users’ mobile devices even after they had disabled the "Web & App Activity" setting—a feature widely advertised by Google as a tool for users to control their data privacy. The lawsuit, filed in July 2020, covered an estimated 98 million Google users and 174 million devices, according to Reuters and BBC.
Plaintiffs in the case initially sought more than $31 billion in damages, arguing that Google's data collection practices were far more invasive and widespread than the company let on. The class action alleged that even after users opted out of tracking, Google’s reach extended through hundreds of thousands of smartphone apps, including popular names such as Uber, Lyft, Venmo, Alibaba, Amazon, and Meta’s Instagram and Facebook, all of which use Google Analytics or related services. As reported by Investing.com, this meant that users who believed they had opted out of tracking were still having their app activity monitored and stored by Google, often without their knowledge.
The jury found Google liable on two of the three claims of privacy violations brought by the plaintiffs, but concluded that the company had not acted with malice—meaning no punitive damages were awarded. Still, the $425 million penalty is a significant blow, both financially and reputationally, to the world’s most powerful search engine. As noted by Axios, the verdict is a major statement about the growing expectations for privacy in the digital age.
Google, for its part, has been quick to push back. In a statement to the BBC and other outlets, company spokesperson Jose Castaneda said, “This decision misunderstands how our products work. Our privacy tools give people control over their data, and when they turn off personalization, we honor that choice.” Google maintains that the data collected in question was "nonpersonal, pseudonymous, and stored in segregated, secured, and encrypted locations," and insisted that it was not associated with users’ Google accounts or any individual’s identity.
But the jury was unmoved by these arguments, finding that Google's assurances about privacy and control did not match up with the company’s actual data collection practices. According to the BBC, the jury determined that Google’s behavior amounted to a violation of the privacy assurances it made to users under the Web & App Activity setting. The panel, however, did not find that Google’s actions were malicious or intended to cause harm, a key distinction that spared the company from even steeper penalties.
The verdict comes at a time when Google is facing mounting legal scrutiny on multiple fronts. Earlier this year, the tech giant paid nearly $1.4 billion in a settlement with the state of Texas over similar allegations that it had violated state privacy laws, as reported by Investing.com and Reuters. In April 2024, Google also agreed to destroy billions of records related to users’ private browsing activities to resolve another lawsuit that accused the company of tracking people even when they were using "Incognito" mode, according to Axios.
Beyond privacy, Google is also in the crosshairs of antitrust regulators. In a separate case decided just days before the privacy verdict, a federal judge ruled that Google would not have to sell its Chrome web browser or Android operating system but must share some of its search data with competitors. The U.S. Department of Justice had demanded that Google divest Chrome as part of a broader effort to curb the company’s dominance in online search, but Judge Amit Mehta stopped short of that remedy. Instead, Google is now barred from entering exclusive contracts and required to provide certain data to rivals, as reported by the BBC and Reuters. Alphabet, Google's parent company, saw its shares jump more than 9% on the news that it could keep its flagship browser and operating system, even as it faces new data-sharing obligations.
Meanwhile, another antitrust case looms on the horizon for Google. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who ruled in April 2025 that Google holds a monopoly in advertising technology, is set to oversee a trial aimed at finding remedies later this month. These overlapping legal challenges highlight the increasingly complex regulatory landscape confronting Big Tech in the United States.
Google’s defense in the privacy case rested on the argument that businesses using Google Analytics may still collect certain traffic data even if users have disabled Web & App Activity, but that this data does not identify individuals and respects privacy choices. However, as plaintiffs’ attorney David Boies told Reuters, the jury’s verdict suggests that the public and the courts are demanding more than technical compliance—they want meaningful transparency and real control over personal data. "We are obviously very pleased with the verdict the jury returned," Boies said, reflecting a sentiment shared by privacy advocates nationwide.
For many users, the technical details of how data is collected and anonymized are less important than the perception of trust. The case underscores the difficulty consumers face in understanding what happens to their data once it leaves their devices, especially in an era where apps and platforms are deeply intertwined. The fact that Google’s data collection touched apps as varied as ride-hailing services, e-commerce platforms, and social networks only amplifies these concerns.
The $425 million fine, while substantial, is just one chapter in the ongoing saga of tech industry regulation. As companies like Google continue to innovate—and as users become more aware and protective of their digital privacy—the courts are likely to play an ever-larger role in defining the boundaries of acceptable corporate behavior. With appeals and further litigation all but certain, the final outcome of this case remains to be seen. But for now, the message from the jury is clear: privacy assurances must be honored, and companies will be held accountable when they fall short.
As the dust settles, all eyes are on Google’s next move—and on how the broader tech industry will respond to this powerful new precedent in the fight for digital privacy.
