According to Reuters, on Friday, January 30, a federal judge in San Francisco rejected a bid to hit Alphabet’s Google with over $2 billion in new penalties related to past data collection. Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg denied a request to order Google to disgorge $2.36 billion in alleged profits and to stop certain ad-related data practices. This follows a September jury verdict that found Google liable for secretly collecting app activity data from millions who disabled a tracking feature. That jury awarded about $425 million in damages to the class action plaintiffs, which was far below the $31 billion they originally sought. The judge also rejected Google’s request to decertify the class of 98 million users and 174 million devices, though Google maintains it did nothing wrong and plans to appeal the underlying verdict.
The billion-dollar ask that fell flat
Here’s the thing: the plaintiffs were really swinging for the fences here. After a jury already said a $425 million penalty was enough, they went back to the judge asking for an additional $2.36 billion and a court order to stop Google‘s data practices. That’s a massive ask, and the judge basically said they didn’t make their case. He said they failed to show “prospective, irreparable harm” to justify an injunction and that their profit estimate was “insufficiently supported.” So, what does that tell us? It suggests the legal strategy to go for Google’s alleged profits—a tactic that sounds great in a headline—just didn’t have the evidentiary legs to stand on in court.
Google’s unchanged practices and the bigger picture
And this is the kicker: the plaintiffs argued that despite the September verdict, Google hasn’t changed its privacy disclosures or data collection practices. Google’s counter-argument? That blocking this collection would “cripple” an analytics service used by millions of app developers. The judge sided with Google on the injunction, which means business as usual for now. But think about that for a second. A jury found the company liable for secretly collecting data, yet there’s no court order forcing it to change how it operates today. That’s a pretty significant win for Google’s legal team. It limits the fallout to a (relatively) modest financial penalty and avoids any operational handcuffs.
Where does this leave users?
So what now? Google is appealing the $425 million verdict, and this ruling removes the threat of a much larger financial blow and disruptive injunction. For the 98 million users in the class, the September award stands for now, but the total is a fraction of what was sought. It’s another example of how class action settlements often end up being far less dramatic than the initial claims. The real takeaway might be that while companies can be found liable for past behavior, getting a court to fundamentally alter their future business practices—or to hand over massive, speculative profits—is a much, much higher bar to clear. The case grinds on, but the immediate danger for Google has been significantly dialed back.
