Google Hit with $314.6m Verdict Over Unauthorized Data Use in California Android Case, Adding to Its Global Legal Troubles

Google is facing another legal blow in the United States after a jury in San Jose, California, found that the tech giant misused Android smartphone users’ data without permission and must pay over $314.6 million in damages.

The class-action verdict marks a significant moment in the broader fight over consumer data rights, transparency in technology services, and the unchecked power of Big Tech.

The jury ruled in favor of approximately 14 million California Android users, agreeing that Google secretly sent and received data from idle Android devices without user consent. The plaintiffs argued that Google profited from these unauthorized data transfers—largely to fuel its advertising business—while consumers were left to bear the cost, particularly through their mobile data plans.

The lawsuit, which dates back to 2019, accused Google of placing a “mandatory and unavoidable burden” on users for its own benefit, with data being collected even when users were not actively using their phones. That behavior, the suit contended, constituted a violation of California’s privacy and consumer protection laws.

The decision represents one of the largest consumer privacy verdicts ever handed down against Google and underlines the growing legal challenges the company faces around data privacy and consumer rights.

Google to Appeal

In a statement, Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said the company plans to appeal the verdict, arguing that the decision “misunderstands services that are critical to the security, performance, and reliability of Android devices.” Google further argued that Android users had consented to data collection in the company’s terms of service and privacy policy and that there was no actual harm done to users.

However, the jury disagreed, finding that the data collection—without clear and explicit user authorization—constituted a form of digital overreach. The damages were calculated based on the mobile data costs incurred by users, even if individually small, that collectively formed a significant financial impact.

National and Global Implications

While this class-action case is limited to California residents, it may pave the way for larger legal consequences. A separate class-action lawsuit has been filed in federal court in San Jose on behalf of Android users in the other 49 U.S. states. That case is scheduled to go to trial in April 2026 and could expose Google to billions of dollars in additional liabilities if the federal court finds similarly.

The California ruling comes as Google continues to battle a wave of antitrust lawsuits both in the United States and across Europe.

Part of a Pattern of Google’s Mounting Legal Pressure

This latest judgment adds to a growing list of antitrust and privacy lawsuits targeting Google’s core businesses. In the U.S., Google is already defending:

• A landmark antitrust case from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which accuses the company of using illegal tactics to maintain its search engine monopoly.
• A separate DOJ lawsuit, filed in 2023, targeting Google’s digital advertising business, alleging that the company engaged in anti-competitive conduct by controlling multiple sides of the ad-tech stack.
• Multiple state-led lawsuits, including from attorneys general in Texas and other states, alleging Google inflated ad prices and suppressed competition through its dominance in online advertising.

In Europe, the company is also under intense scrutiny:

• In 2022, Google was fined €4.125 billion by the European Commission for abusing its market dominance in Android, forcing manufacturers to pre-install Google services.
• The European Commission is currently probing Google’s ad tech business, part of the broader enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which aims to curtail the power of dominant digital platforms.

The California jury’s verdict reflects a larger shift in how courts, regulators, and the public are starting to view Big Tech’s data practices. Even if users click “agree” on long privacy policies, the legal system is showing signs that blanket consent may no longer shield companies from accountability—especially when background data collection occurs without meaningful transparency or user control.

As the digital economy becomes increasingly embedded in daily life, the ruling is expected to set a precedent for how consumer data costs are measured and what constitutes informed consent in the mobile age.

Google is expected to appeal the decision, and the company’s legal team is likely to argue that its practices are industry standard and necessary for ensuring reliable service performance. But the broader issue is that Google’s core business models, particularly those reliant on targeted advertising and user data, are coming under renewed legal threat.

With federal litigation looming, and similar regulatory scrutiny mounting overseas, this case could become a key inflection point in the broader effort to redefine the digital contract between technology companies and their users.