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.
