Google Avoids Billions in New Privacy Penalties, But the Legal Meter Keeps Running

On paper, Friday looked like a win for Google. A federal judge in San Francisco rejected consumers’ attempt to pile an additional $2.36 billion in penalties onto an already painful privacy verdict. Alphabet’s lawyers could finally exhale, at least a little.

But this was the kind of victory that still comes with a receipt.

The court did not erase the $425 million jury verdict handed down last September. It did not declare Google’s tracking practices lawful. And it certainly did not settle the larger question hovering over the company’s business model, whether Google’s privacy controls actually do what users think they do.

So yes, Google avoided billions more in penalties. But the legal meter is still very much running.

What the Judge Actually Decided

Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg was asked to do two big things after last year’s verdict, and on Friday he declined both.

• Consumers wanted Google to disgorge $2.36 billion in alleged profits they say the company earned by tracking users who had explicitly turned off Web and App Activity.
• They also asked for a permanent injunction that would force Google to change how certain advertising and analytics data is collected going forward.

Judge Seeborg said no to both.

His reasoning was straightforward. The jury had already issued an advisory verdict saying disgorgement was not appropriate, and the plaintiffs failed to show ongoing irreparable harm that would justify a sweeping injunction. In short, the court was not convinced that winning $425 million automatically entitled consumers to rewrite Google’s data operations.

Translation, you proved wrongdoing, you got damages, but you do not get to grab the company’s profits or redesign its engine without stronger legal footing.

Why This Still Hurts Google

The ruling spared Google from an immediate multibillion dollar hit, but it left the core problem intact.

The September verdict still stands. A jury still found that Google violated user privacy by collecting data through app analytics even when users had disabled tracking in their account settings. The class action still covers roughly 98 million users and 174 million devices.

And Google still owes $425 million unless it succeeds on appeal.

That matters because reputational damage does not scale down just because a penalty does. In the public mind, the headline takeaway remains the same, Google tracked users who thought they had opted out.

A Reminder of What This Case Was About

This lawsuit, filed back in 2020, focused on a deceptively simple issue. When users turned off Web and App Activity in their Google accounts, did that actually stop Google from collecting data about their app usage?

The jury said no.

According to the verdict, Google continued collecting information through Google Analytics integrations embedded in popular apps, even when users believed they had shut tracking off. The jury did not find malicious intent, but it did find the practice harmful and offensive enough to justify hundreds of millions in damages.

That distinction matters legally, but not necessarily emotionally. Most users do not parse advisory verdicts. They remember feeling misled.

Google’s Defense, Still the Same

Throughout the case, Google has stuck to a familiar argument.

The company says the data in question was anonymized and used for analytics, not personal identification. It also argues that the Web and App Activity toggle never explicitly promised to stop all analytics collection, only certain types of personalized data use.

In other words, users misunderstood what the setting did.

Google has also warned that forcing changes through a court injunction could disrupt analytics services relied on by millions of app developers, a line that tends to land better in industry circles than with consumers.

The company has said it plans to appeal the September verdict, meaning this legal saga is far from finished.

One Paragraph, Two Takeaways

Here is the clean version of what Friday changed, and what it did not.

• Google avoided an extra $2.36 billion penalty, preserving financial breathing room in the short term.
• Google did not escape liability, scrutiny, or the precedent set by last year’s jury verdict.

If this were a boxing match, Friday was a successful block, not a knockout.

The Bigger Privacy Scoreboard

This case also fits into a much larger pattern for Google and its parent, Alphabet.

Over the past 18 months, Google has paid or agreed to pay more than $2 billion in privacy related settlements and verdicts. That includes state actions, consumer class actions, and cases involving everything from incognito browsing to voice assistant recordings.

Add in commitments to delete massive amounts of user data and adjust disclosures, and the picture becomes clear. Privacy litigation has shifted from an occasional headache to a recurring operating cost.

Google can afford it financially. The harder part is convincing regulators, courts, and users that it actually respects consent when people say no.

Why This Is Not Over

Friday’s ruling sends both sides to the next phase.

Consumers did not get the billions they wanted, but they preserved a powerful jury verdict that could influence future cases. Google avoided a major financial escalation, but now heads into an appeal carrying the weight of a confirmed liability finding.

More broadly, the case underscores a growing problem for tech platforms. Settings labeled as privacy controls are increasingly being tested not by marketing language, but by juries.

And juries, unlike engineers, tend to ask a blunt question. If I turned it off, why were you still watching?

Why Google’s Privacy Reckoning Isn’t Over

Google successfully fought off a $2.36 billion escalation in privacy penalties. That is real money, and a real win.

But the company is still on the hook for $425 million, still appealing a damaging verdict, and still facing a legal environment where courts are far less patient with fine print explanations of what privacy controls actually mean.

The meter did not reset on Friday. It just stopped spinning quite so fast.

And in the modern tech economy, that is what passes for good news.