Google Hit with $314.6M Data Misuse Verdict
Table of Contents
Case Background
The case concerned Google’s alleged practice of using cellular data allowances purchased by Android users for its own benefit. Plaintiffs, representing a class of California residents, claimed Google misappropriated cellular data through “passive” transfers. These transfers occurred when devices appeared idle, without users’ knowledge or consent.
Cause
Google allegedly designed its Android system and applications to use users’ data allowances at all times. Data transfers continued even after users closed apps or moved them to the background. Google allegedly prevented users from disabling these transfers or restricting them to Wi-Fi networks. Plaintiffs claimed Google crafted its terms of service and policies to conceal the practice.
Injury
Plaintiffs argued these data transfers caused actual harm. They paid mobile carriers for data allowances to send and receive information. Google’s actions allegedly interfered with their property rights, constituting conversion. Plaintiffs noted that iOS devices sent less information through passive transfers.
Damages
Plaintiffs sought compensation for the reasonable market value of the misappropriated data. They alleged Google gained a valuable benefit to its advertising business at their expense and must repay them for the data taken.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs: Andrew Burke | Attila Csupo | Kerry Hecht | Nicolaus Waetjen | Ninef Sargis
Counsel for Plaintiffs: Ann M. Ravel | Glen Eric Summers | Karma Micaela Giulianelli | William Whitcomb Faulkner
Defendants: Alphabet, Inc. | Google LLC
Counsel for Defendants: Max A. Bernstein | Whitty Somvichian | Ariana Elise Bustos | Emily J. Born | Kathleen Roberta Hartnett | Matt K. Nguyen | Michael Anthony Attanasio | Michael G. Tetreault
Claims
Plaintiffs brought claims for conversion and quantum meruit. They alleged Google wrongfully interfered with their property by using their data without consent and benefited from the transfers. They sought damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
Defense
Google denied all allegations, rejecting claims that plaintiffs suffered any injury or damages from its conduct. It argued that plaintiffs were not entitled to any form of relief and that no act or omission by Google, its agents, or employees caused harm.
Google raised numerous affirmative defenses, asserting that plaintiffs consented to the alleged data transfers through its terms and policies, voluntarily assumed related risks, and failed to mitigate any harm. It challenged class certification, denied causation, and claimed damages were speculative or caused by third parties. Google invoked equitable defenses such as waiver, estoppel, laches, unclean hands, and the voluntary payment doctrine, along with statutory defenses like the statute of limitations. It also claimed good faith, lack of standing, due process violations, and reserved the right to assert additional defenses as discovery progressed.
Jury Verdict
On July 1, 2025, the court awarded the plaintiff $314,626,932 in damages, entering judgment in the plaintiff’s favor and holding the defendant liable for the full amount.
Court Documents
Court documents are available for purchase upon request at Jurimatic@exlitem.com