SAN FRANCISCO, January 31, 2026, 05:17 (PST)
- A U.S. judge has denied the request to force Google to surrender $2.36 billion in claimed profits and rejected calls for a wide-ranging injunction
- The court also shot down Google’s attempt to decertify the class, leaving the jury’s $425 million award standing.
- Google confirmed it plans to appeal the verdict handed down in September
A U.S. federal judge in San Francisco turned down a push to tack on over $2 billion in extra penalties against Alphabet’s Google in a privacy class action. The court refused to force Google to hand over $2.36 billion in alleged profits or halt certain data practices. At the same time, the judge rejected Google’s attempt to decertify the class, keeping the September jury verdict intact. 1
The ruling is pivotal because it caps the amount users can claim after trial in a case centered on a privacy “off” switch. Seeborg called the post-verdict motions from both parties efforts to “augment and upset the verdict in various ways.” 2
Alphabet shares didn’t trade since U.S. markets were closed on Saturday.
The case kicked off in July 2020, with lead plaintiff Anibal Rodriguez and others suing Google over its collection of “anonymized” app activity data—taken even after users disabled a Google account setting called supplemental Web App and Activity, or sWAA. After three weeks in court, jurors ruled Google liable for invasion of privacy under the California Constitution and intrusion upon seclusion. They dismissed a claim related to the state’s computer data access law but still handed down $425,651,947 in actual damages.
The sWAA setting tracks a user’s Chrome history and activity across sites, apps, and devices using Google services, the judge’s order notes. Plaintiffs argue that Google kept gathering and exploiting this data for commercial gain despite the setting being turned off.
After the verdict, plaintiffs pushed for a permanent injunction—a court order to stop Google from collecting and storing sWAA-off data going forward. They also demanded deletion of existing data and destruction of related algorithms and models. But Seeborg ruled they hadn’t demonstrated “prospective, irreparable harm” and labeled the requested remedies as “far too broad.”
On disgorgement — the forced surrender of profits — Seeborg argued the damages award already provided users a proper legal remedy, calling their $2.36 billion profit figure “insufficiently supported.” He emphasized that equity’s role is to plug holes where monetary damages fail, not to offer litigants “a second bite at the apple.”
Google claimed that an order preventing it from gathering users’ account-related data would “cripple” an analytics service used by millions of app developers, according to court filings. The company denies any wrongdoing.
The judge also shot down Google’s attempt to remove the case’s class-action status, stating that Google misunderstood the plaintiffs’ argument. Google had pointed to Apple’s iOS pop-up asking users if they wanted an app “not to track” them. But Seeborg ruled that this didn’t eliminate common issues, even for users who allowed tracking but had sWAA disabled.
Google has yet to respond to requests for comment. David Boies, the lead attorney representing the consumers, expressed gratitude that the ruling upheld the jury’s verdict.
The final bill isn’t set yet. Google plans to appeal the September verdict, and the appeals court might reconsider both the liability decision and whether the case should cover the entire class.
