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.


Does international law still matter? The strike on the girls’ school in Iran shows why we need it
Nissan, Uber, and Wayve Team Up to Launch Robotaxi Pilot in Tokyo
UBS Seeks Legal Protection Over Credit Suisse's Nazi-Era Banking Activities
Indonesia Issues Stern Warning to Meta Over Online Gambling and Disinformation
Big Tech Turns to Debt Markets to Fund AI Infrastructure Boom
Microsoft Backs Anthropic in Legal Fight Against Pentagon's AI Blacklist
California Seeks Court Order to Halt Amazon’s Alleged Price Inflation Practices
Top Democrat Accuses DOJ of Withholding FBI Records in Trump-Epstein Investigation
Oracle Stock Surges as AI Data Center Boom Drives Revenue Beat and Bullish 2027 Outlook
Amazon Engineers Investigate AI-Linked Outages as GenAI Coding Tools Raise Reliability Concerns
Trump Administration Proposes Tough AI Contract Rules as Anthropic Blacklisted by Pentagon
OpenAI Explores Partnership With The Trade Desk to Expand ChatGPT Advertising
Big Tech Signs White House Pledge to Fund Power for AI Data Centers
Pokemon Pokopia Sells 2.2 Million Copies in Four Days, Boosting Nintendo Switch 2 Momentum
Nvidia Sets $4M CEO Bonus Target for Fiscal 2027 as AI Demand Drives Revenue Growth
Moderna to Pay Up to $2.25B to Settle LNP Patent Dispute Over COVID-19 Vaccine Technology
FedEx Sues U.S. Government for Refund of Trump-Era Emergency Tariffs After Supreme Court Ruling 



