A federal jury found Google violated California privacy laws affecting 98 million users over an 8-year period

In a stunning legal blow to one of the world’s most powerful tech companies, a federal jury has ordered Google to pay \$425 million in damages after determining the company violated California privacy laws by secretly tracking and storing user data from smartphones for nearly eight years.

The decision, handed down in a San Jose courtroom this week, marks one of the largest privacy-related verdicts in U.S. history and reignites questions about how far Big Tech can push the boundaries of consumer trust.

The case centered around allegations that Google continued to track smartphone users even after they had explicitly opted out of location tracking and related services.

Jurors found that from 2012 through 2020, the company harvested data tied to browsing history, app usage, and even background activity, creating detailed profiles of individuals’ lives without their knowledge or consent.

Court documents revealed that this practice affected nearly 98 million users across the United States, many of them in California, where the state’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) provides strict protections against data misuse.

“This verdict is about accountability,” said lead attorney Michael Kessler, speaking outside the courthouse after the ruling.

“For years, ordinary Americans were led to believe they had control over their privacy settings, only to discover that those controls were a façade. Google made billions while users unknowingly paid with their personal lives.”

Google’s legal team expressed disappointment at the outcome, maintaining that the company never intentionally misled its users. “We respectfully disagree with the jury’s findings,” spokesperson Linda Flores said.

“Our goal has always been transparency, and we will evaluate our options moving forward.” However, observers noted that the company stopped short of announcing an immediate appeal, suggesting that Google may be preparing for additional negotiations behind closed doors.

The trial brought to light internal company emails and memos that jurors described as “troubling.” One exchange from 2016 showed engineers debating whether disabling certain tracking features should truly halt all data collection.

“If we actually stop logging this,” one employee wrote, “we lose valuable insights for product development.” Another executive responded, “We can’t let people believe they’re completely off the grid — it would hurt revenue.”

The revelations painted a stark picture of a company willing to blur ethical lines in the pursuit of growth. For privacy advocates, the verdict represents long-awaited justice.

“This is not just about Google,” said Priya Natarajan, director of the Digital Rights Center in San Francisco. “It’s about every company that believes our smartphones are open windows into our private lives. If Google can be held accountable, so can others.”

Beyond the courtroom, the fallout from the verdict may extend into Washington, where lawmakers have been struggling for years to draft a comprehensive federal privacy law.

Senator Maria Lopez of California seized on the decision, calling it “a wake-up call to Congress.” In a statement, she urged bipartisan action, warning that “without stronger protections, tech companies will continue to exploit loopholes that harm millions of Americans.”

The financial penalty, while significant, is unlikely to cripple a company with annual revenues exceeding \$300 billion. But analysts note that the reputational damage could prove more costly in the long run.

Google’s Android operating system powers more than 70% of the world’s smartphones, and its advertising empire depends heavily on user data.

Consumer trust, once broken, is not easily repaired. “This verdict is a scar,” said Daniel Whittaker, a technology analyst in New York. “It won’t bankrupt them, but it undermines the narrative Google has tried to build about being user-first.”

The courtroom drama also touched on personal stories of those affected. One California mother, identified only as Sarah M., testified that she disabled location tracking on her child’s phone, believing it would protect her family’s privacy.

Yet months later, she noticed eerily specific ads appearing on her devices — ads tied to her son’s visits to parks and medical clinics. “It was chilling,” she told the jury. “I felt like we were being watched everywhere we went.”

Others described how the data collection shaped financial and career decisions. A software developer in Los Angeles said he declined a new job offer after targeted ads revealed his browsing activity to his current employer.

“I lost an opportunity because of something I thought I had opted out of,” he said.

Google’s legal troubles are far from over. The company is currently facing multiple state-level investigations, including in Texas and Arizona, where attorneys general have filed suits accusing it of deceptive practices surrounding location tracking.

International regulators, particularly in the European Union, are also watching closely, with some speculating that the U.S. verdict could embolden European watchdogs to pursue harsher penalties under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The jury’s decision underscores a broader reckoning with the role of technology in modern life. Smartphones, once celebrated as tools of empowerment, have increasingly been viewed as instruments of surveillance.

The case against Google forced jurors to confront a question at the heart of the digital age: how much control do individuals truly have over their personal information?

For David Cole, one of the jurors, the answer became clear. Speaking briefly to reporters, he said, “When you tell someone they can turn something off, it should be off. Period. It’s about trust, and Google broke that trust.”

In the weeks ahead, Google will be required to submit a compliance plan detailing how it intends to prevent similar violations. Regulators are expected to demand stricter transparency measures, as well as independent audits of the company’s data-handling practices.

Whether those measures will be enough to restore consumer confidence remains uncertain.

For the millions of users affected, the \$425 million payout may bring a sense of vindication, though individual compensation is expected to be modest once legal fees and administrative costs are deducted. Still, the symbolic weight of the verdict cannot be understated.

As Sarah M., the California mother who testified during the trial, put it, “No amount of money can erase the feeling that we were being spied on in our own homes. But maybe now, companies like Google will think twice before treating people’s lives as data points.”

The courtroom may be empty, the gavel may have fallen, but the echoes of this case will linger across Silicon Valley and beyond.

For Google, the message is unambiguous: privacy is not optional, and the era of unchecked surveillance is no longer acceptable in the eyes of the American public.