Alphabet’s Google has avoided a fresh multibillion-dollar hit in a closely watched privacy class action, even as it remains on the hook for a substantial jury award. A federal judge declined to add more than $2 billion in new penalties on top of an existing verdict, a decision that sharply narrows the company’s immediate financial exposure while keeping the underlying liability intact. The outcome underscores how US courts are still feeling their way through the question of how far to go in punishing large technology platforms for data practices that juries find deceptive.
The ruling also highlights a growing tension in American privacy law: juries are increasingly willing to find that users were misled, but judges are cautious about layering on extraordinary remedies that could reshape entire business models. For Google, the decision is a partial victory that limits the short-term damage, yet it leaves unresolved questions about how far plaintiffs can push for structural changes to the way consumer data is collected and monetized.
The verdict that set the stage
The dispute traces back to a jury finding that Google violated users’ privacy, resulting in a significant monetary award that still stands as a warning shot to the wider tech industry. Earlier this year, a jury ordered the company to pay $425.6 million in damages after concluding that its handling of certain data collection practices crossed legal lines. That figure, also described as $425.6 m, reflects the jury’s view that users suffered real harm when their information was gathered despite privacy settings that were supposed to limit tracking.
At the same time, the jury drew a line on the scope of Google’s wrongdoing, a nuance that would later loom large in the fight over additional penalties. Jurors found that Google did not violate a specific California fraud statute and declined to award further damages under that theory, signaling that they saw misconduct but not the kind of intentional deceit that would justify the harshest sanctions. As one account of the trial noted, the jury simply did not buy the argument that the company’s conduct met the higher bar for fraud under California law, a finding that would later bolster Google’s resistance to a multibillion-dollar disgorgement demand.
Consumers’ push for $2 billion and a tougher remedy
After securing the jury award, the consumer plaintiffs moved aggressively to expand the financial and structural consequences for Google. Their lawyers argued that the company had reaped enormous profits from the data at issue and urged the court to order more than $2 billion in additional penalties, framed as a form of disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. In their telling, the $425.6 million verdict was only a fraction of what Google had earned from the contested practices, and a larger judgment was necessary to deter similar conduct in the future and to reflect the scale of the alleged enrichment.
The plaintiffs also pressed for broader relief that would have constrained how Google operates its services going forward, including arguments that a permanent injunction was warranted to change the way certain privacy settings work. According to a detailed summary of the post-trial motions, they asked U.S. Chief Judge Richard Seeborg to pair the monetary award with ongoing restrictions, contending that anything less would leave users exposed to continued misuse of their data. Their request for a sweeping remedy, including the multibillion-dollar figure, was laid out in filings that framed the case as a test of whether courts will meaningfully curb the power of large platforms like Google.
Judge Seeborg’s ruling: a win with limits for Google
Chief Judge Richard Seeborg ultimately sided with Google on the most financially explosive question, rejecting the bid for more than $2 billion in additional penalties while leaving the jury’s verdict intact. In a decision issued in San Francisco, he declined to order the requested disgorgement, concluding that the plaintiffs had not justified such an extraordinary remedy on top of the existing award. The judge’s ruling means that, for now, Google’s exposure is capped at the roughly $425.6 million already imposed by the jury, rather than ballooning into the multibillion-dollar range that consumer lawyers had sought.
At the same time, Seeborg refused to give Google the clean slate it wanted. The company had asked him to decertify the class and set aside the verdict, but he denied those efforts, leaving the September judgment in place and confirming that the company remains liable to the certified group of users. One account of the ruling notes that Seeborg on Friday rejected Google’s attempt to unravel the case while also turning aside the plaintiffs’ push for a massive disgorgement award, a dual outcome that preserved the core verdict but limited its expansion. The decision, described in detail in coverage by Mike Scarcella, underscores the judge’s effort to strike a middle ground between punishing misconduct and avoiding what he appeared to view as overreach.
How both sides are spinning the outcome
For Google, the ruling is a significant, if partial, victory that sharply reduces the worst-case scenario it faced after the jury verdict. Alphabet’s leadership can now tell investors that the company has persuaded a federal judge in San Francisco to reject a bid for more than $2 billion in extra penalties, a result that removes the specter of a multibillion-dollar escalation. Reports on the decision emphasize that Alphabet’s Google convinced the court to limit the remedy to the existing verdict, a point that will matter to shareholders tracking the company’s legal risks and to other platforms watching how far US courts are willing to go in punishing privacy violations. One account notes that Alphabet successfully argued against the additional $2 billion, even as it continues to contest the underlying liability.
The plaintiffs, however, are framing the decision as only a temporary setback in a broader campaign to hold Google accountable. David Boies, a lead attorney for the consumers, has indicated that they are thankful the jury’s verdict remains intact and that they plan to appeal aspects of the ruling, including the refusal to impose the larger financial penalties. In public comments, Boies has stressed that the case already produced a substantial judgment and a finding that Google violated users’ privacy, and he has signaled that the plaintiffs will continue to press their arguments in higher courts. Coverage of the reaction notes that David Boies and his team are not treating the denial of disgorgement as the final word, particularly given the broader policy stakes they see in the case.
What the decision signals for future privacy litigation
From my perspective, the ruling sends a nuanced message to both tech companies and privacy advocates about the trajectory of US data protection law. On one hand, the fact that a jury was willing to award $425.6 million against a company as prominent as Google shows that arguments about deceptive privacy settings are resonating with ordinary citizens, especially when framed around concrete features that users rely on to control tracking. On the other hand, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg’s refusal to layer on more than $2 billion in additional penalties suggests that federal judges remain wary of turning individual privacy disputes into quasi-regulatory actions that could effectively rewrite business models through the courts. The balance he struck, as described in detailed coverage of his decision, reflects a judicial instinct to punish proven misconduct without embracing the most aggressive remedies sought by plaintiffs.
