Google Fined $425.7 Million for Illegally Collecting User Data, Court Rules

A US federal court in San Francisco has sentenced Google to a high penalty. The company was guilty of having collected data from smartphone users for years.

Collection despite contradiction

Google is said to have illegally collected data from smartphones over the years and thus violated California data protection laws, according to which the court was now also followed. The verdict fell after a two-week process in the context of a class action lawsuit that affected around 98 million devices in the United States.

The period concerned ranges from July 2016 to September 2024. Google was obliged to pay $425.7 million at the end of the procedure, the news agency reported AP. On average, this corresponds to about four dollars per smartphone affected.

The plaintiffs accused Google of having pretended to have a deceptive control over their privacy. Despite the deployed personalization functions, the company continued to record data in order to sell tailor -made advertising – a business that the group is said to have earned billions in additional income. The lawyers originally claimed claims for damages of more than $30 billion.

Google rejected the allegations and announced that it was judging. “This decision fails to see how our products work. We will appeal,” said company spokesman José Castaneda. He emphasized the privacy of the users, he emphasized, and stick to their attitudes as soon as personalized advertising is deactivated.

User lawyers satisfied

However, the judgment means success for the plaintiff. “We hope that this result of the tech industry will send a clear message: People in the United States will not idle how their data will be collected and monetized without consent,” said lawyer John Yanchunis from the Morgan & Morgan law firm. The judgment is part of a phase of increasing legal disputes for the group.

Only the day before had Google achieved a partial success in Washington, DC: In a antitrust procedure for the dominant position of his search engine, the required corporate renovation failed to materialize in a antitrust procedure. Instead, a federal judge ordered fewer extensive measures, including the obligation to share certain search data with competitors.