FOLLOW US

A federal judge in California on Friday refused to unravel a landmark privacy verdict against Google, preserving a $425 million jury award for millions of users — while also rejecting a sweeping bid to force the tech giant to surrender an additional $2.36 billion in alleged profits in what has been dubbed the Google $2B owed suit.

U.S. Chief Judge Richard Seeborg denied dueling post-trial motions, leaving intact a September verdict that found Google unlawfully gathered data from roughly 98 million cellphone users who had expressly opted out of tracking tied to app activity.

At the same time, the court declined to order Google to disgorge billions more or impose a permanent injunction restricting its practices.

Court Rejects Google’s Bid to Decertify Class

Google had asked the court to decertify the class and vacate the verdict, arguing that privacy expectations vary user by user and cannot be resolved collectively.

Judge Seeborg was not persuaded.

He wrote that Google’s position “rests on a misapprehension” of the plaintiffs’ theory — one he said was shaped from “a few stray comments made by a single witness.”

“The core of plaintiffs’ theory is and always has been that Google’s decision to collect certain data after it said it would not was inherently offensive,” Seeborg said, adding that the issue was “perfectly susceptible to collective proof.”

The case centers on Google’s “supplemental Web & App Activity,” or sWAA, setting related to third-party app usage. Plaintiffs Anibal Rodriguez, Julian Santiago and Susan Lynn Harvey represent nationwide classes of device users who turned off that feature between July 2016 and September 2024.

In September 2025, a San Francisco jury concluded that Google unlawfully saved and used data from third-party apps despite users opting out. The panel awarded more than $425 million in damages but declined to grant punitive damages or require disgorgement of profits.

Judge Blocks $2.36B Disgorgement Push

Following the verdict, plaintiffs sought to escalate the stakes, pressing for $2.36 billion in profit disgorgement — a figure they described as a “conservative approximation” of Google’s net gains from the conduct during the class period.

They also requested a permanent injunction barring Google from collecting sWAA-off data, compelling deletion of already-collected information and dismantling algorithms and services that relied on such data.

Judge Seeborg rejected those requests.

“Plaintiffs have failed to establish prospective irreparable harm, making a permanent injunction inappropriate,” he wrote. He further held that they had not shown entitlement to disgorgement because their legal remedy was adequate and their profit estimates insufficiently supported.

The judge noted that collecting sWAA-off data “is not problematic in isolation.” The violation stemmed from alleged misrepresentations about data practices — a concern he said has since been “ameliorated.”

Even if some injunctive relief were justified, the proposal put forward by the plaintiffs was “far too broad,” he added.

No Second Bite at the Apple

In addressing the demand for billions more, Seeborg emphasized that equitable remedies are designed to fill gaps, not to provide litigants another opportunity after a jury declines to award higher damages.

The plaintiffs had argued during trial that they were owed more than $31 billion. The jury disagreed.

“At bottom, the purpose of federal equitable jurisdiction is to act as a gap filler where legal remedies are inadequate, not to give a plaintiff a second bite at the apple,” the judge wrote.

He added that by focusing on the gap between the $425 million award and the claimed $2.36 billion in profits, the plaintiffs effectively conceded that a larger damages verdict would have been sufficient — undercutting their argument for equitable relief.

The central questions in the case, Seeborg said, were whether Google misled users about its data collection and whether anonymized data allowed the company to construct a more comprehensive user profile. Neither question required individualized inquiry, he concluded.

David Boies, counsel for the users, said Friday, “We are pleased that the court has confirmed the jury’s verdict.”

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Counsel

The users are represented by attorneys from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Susman Godfrey LLP and Morgan & Morgan PA, including David Boies and Alexander Boies.

Google is represented by lawyers from Cooley LLP, including Jonathan Patchen and Michael A. Attanasio.