Alphabet’s Google has secured a major legal victory after a federal judge in San Francisco rejected a consumer bid seeking more than $2 billion in penalties related to the company’s past data collection practices. On Friday, Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg denied the plaintiffs’ request to force Google to disgorge $2.36 billion in alleged profits and to impose restrictions on certain advertising-related data practices.
The ruling follows a September jury verdict that found Google liable for collecting app activity data from millions of users who had turned off a key privacy setting. While the jury sided with consumers on liability, it awarded approximately $425 million in damages—far below the $31 billion initially sought by the plaintiffs. The jury also issued an advisory verdict stating that disgorgement of profits was not warranted in the case.
Google had urged Judge Seeborg not to impose additional penalties beyond the jury’s verdict. In his decision, the judge agreed, stating that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate entitlement to disgorgement and that their estimates of Google’s profits were “insufficiently supported.” He also declined to issue a permanent injunction, ruling that consumers had not shown any prospective or irreparable harm that would justify blocking Google’s data collection practices.
The plaintiffs argued that Google continued its data collection without changing privacy disclosures, despite the verdict. Google countered that restricting its ability to collect account-related data would severely damage analytics services relied upon by millions of app developers. Judge Seeborg accepted Google’s position, noting the lack of evidence that ongoing practices posed immediate harm to users.
In a separate blow to Google’s defense, the judge rejected the company’s request to decertify the class action, which includes approximately 98 million users and 174 million devices. Google has denied any wrongdoing and announced plans to appeal the September verdict.
The case, Rodriguez v. Google LLC, remains closely watched as it highlights ongoing legal scrutiny over data privacy, user consent, and the limits of financial penalties against major technology companies in the United States.


Unilever and Magnum Face Defamation Lawsuit Over Ben & Jerry's Board Chair Dismissal
Will a new border deal with the US open a backdoor into Kiwis’ personal data?
Federal Judge Blocks Pentagon's Blacklisting of AI Company Anthropic
Rubio Directs U.S. Diplomats to Use X and Military Psyops to Counter Foreign Propaganda
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink Earns $37.7 Million in 2025 Amid Record Growth
Ukrainian Drones and the #MadeByHousewives Movement: Kyiv Fires Back at Rheinmetall CEO
Nintendo Switch 2 Production Cut as Holiday Sales Miss Targets
Bank of America's $72.5M Epstein Settlement: What You Need to Know
MATCH Act Targets ASML and Chinese Chipmakers in New U.S. Export Crackdown
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration's Move to End Temporary Protected Status for Somali Immigrants
Google's TurboQuant Algorithm Sends Memory Chip Stocks Tumbling
Trump Administration Settles Lawsuit Barring Federal Agencies from Pressuring Social Media Censorship
Federal Reserve Crisis: DOJ Standoff Threatens Powell's Succession and Rate Stability
Federal Judge Rules CBP Violated Warrantless Arrest Order During Sacramento Immigration Sweep
CTOC Adds 3,000 Doctors, 500 Hospitals Ahead of Liquidity Push
Makemation: a Nollywood movie that shows AI in action in Africa
Russell 1000 Companies Hit $2.2T Cash Record While Aggressively Reinvesting in Growth 



