Google Users Demand $2.36 Billion After Privacy Violation Verdict

Google Faces $2.36 Billion Profit Forfeiture Demand After Privacy Verdict

US consumers who secured a $425 million jury verdict against Google last month are now demanding the tech giant forfeit an additional $2.36 billion in profits. The plaintiffs argue this amount represents a “conservative approximation” of Google’s ill-gotten gains from secretly collecting app activity data.

Key Takeaways

• Google users seek $2.36 billion profit disgorgement on top of $425 million verdict
• Jury found Google secretly collected data despite users disabling tracking
• Google denies wrongdoing, plans appeal, and seeks to overturn class certification

Legal Battle Intensifies

In a Wednesday court filing, consumers told Chief US District Judge Richard Seeborg that the jury found Google’s conduct “highly offensive, harmful, and without consent.” They called the original $425 million damages “clearly insufficient to remedy the ongoing and irreparable harm” caused by Google’s practices.

“The jury found that Google’s conduct was highly offensive, harmful, and without consent”

Google’s Defense and Countermove

Google has maintained its innocence, arguing the collected data was anonymized and that its privacy tools provide user control. The company plans to appeal the verdict and has asked Judge Seeborg to decertify the class of 98 million users and 174 million devices.

Google contends the claims depend on individualized factors like app usage and user expectations, and has urged the court to vacate the verdict due to “lack of common issues.”

Background of the Case

The 2020 lawsuit alleged Google accessed users’ mobile devices over eight years to collect, save, and use data, violating privacy assurances under the “Web & App Activity” account setting. The jury found Google liable on two of three privacy claims, though plaintiffs had initially sought over $31 billion in damages.

Despite the verdict, plaintiffs note Google hasn’t changed its privacy disclosures or data collection practices. The case now rests with Judge Seeborg to determine if profit disgorgement is appropriate in this landmark privacy battle.