In one of the most closely watched privacy cases in recent years, a federal jury in San Francisco has delivered a $425 million verdict against Google, marking a milestone moment in the ongoing battle over consumer data rights. The case, which began as a sprawling class-action lawsuit in 2020, accused the tech giant of tracking user activity even after individuals had chosen to disable key privacy features.
While the award falls short of the $31 billion initially sought by plaintiffs, the decision nonetheless underscores growing public and legal scrutiny of how Big Tech manages consumer data—and highlights the risks companies face when transparency is called into question.
The Case: Allegations of Hidden Tracking
The plaintiffs alleged that between 2016 and 2024, Google’s “Web & App Activity” setting continued to capture and store user data from mobile devices, despite assurances that disabling the feature would prevent such tracking.
According to the complaint, this practice affected more than 98 million users and over 170 million devices, sparking claims of unlawful enrichment and intrusion into personal privacy. Plaintiffs argued that Google’s conduct undermined user trust while allowing the company to monetize personal information in ways consumers had explicitly rejected.
The class sought damages exceeding $31 billion, a staggering figure designed both to compensate affected users and to send a message to Google and other tech giants.
The Verdict: Partial Victory for Plaintiffs
After a trial that began on August 19, 2025, the jury deliberated for two days before concluding that Google had indeed committed invasion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion. However, the panel found no evidence of malice, meaning punitive damages were not awarded.
Instead, the jury ordered Google to pay $425 million—a significant judgment but far smaller than the plaintiffs’ original demand. Still, for privacy advocates, the ruling represents a clear victory, confirming that corporations can be held accountable when their practices misalign with consumer expectations and stated policies.
The Role of Cooley LLP: A Timely Shift
The case also drew headlines for its unusual legal dynamics. For years, Google had been represented by Willkie Farr & Gallagher, with Benedict Hur and Simona Agnolucci leading the defense. But in the weeks before trial, both attorneys left Willkie and joined Cooley LLP, taking the case with them.
The shift came amid internal disputes at Willkie over the firm’s involvement in politically sensitive matters. The move ultimately placed Cooley in charge of defending Google in the final, high-stakes stages of litigation—a challenge the firm embraced as the jury trial got underway.
Despite a robust defense strategy emphasizing that collected data was anonymized and not linked to specific accounts, the jury sided with the plaintiffs on two core claims.
Reactions from Both Sides
Plaintiffs’ Counsel:
Attorneys from Morgan & Morgan, Boies Schiller Flexner, and Susman Godfrey hailed the verdict as a landmark step toward holding tech giants accountable. Lead lawyer John Yanchunis praised the jury’s decision, saying it reflected a recognition that Google had improperly enriched itself at the expense of user privacy.
Google’s Response:
Google immediately announced plans to appeal, emphasizing its view that the verdict misinterprets the company’s privacy tools. A spokesperson noted that “when personalization is turned off, we respect that choice,” and stressed that the disputed data was pseudonymous, not personally identifiable. The company maintains that its privacy systems remain among the most transparent in the industry.
Wider Context: Google’s Privacy Battles Multiply
This ruling adds to a series of costly legal challenges for Google. Earlier this year, the company agreed to pay $1.375 billion in a settlement with the state of Texas over related privacy concerns. In another case, Google accepted terms requiring it to delete billions of records linked to claims of tracking users in Incognito mode on its Chrome browser.
Meanwhile, plaintiffs’ attorneys are pursuing $217 million in legal fees tied to that Incognito settlement, a figure Google is actively contesting. Together, these cases illustrate the intensifying pressure on major tech firms to demonstrate compliance with privacy expectations—and the willingness of courts and regulators to demand accountability.
Broader Legal and Industry Implications
This trial signals several key shifts in the legal landscape:
- Stronger Consumer Protections: The verdict reinforces the idea that privacy settings must be honored without exception. Companies that undermine those expectations face serious legal and financial consequences.
- Evolving Class-Action Strategy: Plaintiffs framed the case around per-device violations, a strategy that broadened the scope of damages and highlighted the tangible scale of the alleged misconduct.
- Ethical Dimensions of Representation: The switch from Willkie to Cooley underscored how internal firm politics and external optics can influence high-profile litigation.
- Future of Tech Regulation: With lawmakers increasingly focused on digital privacy, cases like this one may fuel calls for clearer national standards on data collection and consent.
What Comes Next
Google’s planned appeal will likely extend the litigation for years, raising questions about how appellate courts interpret user consent, anonymized data, and privacy expectations in a digital-first world. For now, the $425 million judgment stands as one of the most significant jury verdicts against a tech giant on privacy grounds.
For attorneys, scholars, and law students, the case provides a valuable study in class-action litigation, jury strategy, and the broader intersection of technology and consumer rights. It also demonstrates the increasing importance of understanding both technical systems and user perception when litigating in the digital space.
Conclusion
The $425 million verdict against Google is not just a headline—it’s a signal. Courts are prepared to hold even the world’s largest tech companies accountable when consumer trust is at stake. For JDJournal readers, this case highlights the legal community’s expanding role in shaping the boundaries of privacy, transparency, and accountability in the digital age.
As Google prepares its appeal, one thing is clear: this is only the beginning of a longer battle that could reshape the legal framework governing online privacy for years to come.
👉 What do you think? Should Arizona open the courtroom doors to non-J.D. graduates—or does this compromise justice? Share your thoughts with us and join the conversation shaping the future of legal education and criminal defense.
📩 Stay informed with JDJournal—subscribe today for breaking updates on legal industry reforms, career insights, and developments that could redefine the practice of law.
