Rodriguez v. Google LLC is a federal class action in which a California jury found on September 3, 2025 that Google invaded the privacy of roughly 98 million cellphone users by continuing to collect data from their non-Google apps after they had switched off Google’s tracking settings. The jury awarded $425,651,947 in compensatory damages. No money has been distributed. Google says it will appeal.
What the Case Is About
The lawsuit turned on two Google account settings: “Web & App Activity” (WAA) and “supplemental Web & App Activity” (sWAA). Users who paused or turned off these toggles believed they had stopped Google from tracking what they did inside mobile apps. The plaintiffs alleged Google kept collecting, saving, and using that activity anyway, pulling it from popular non-Google apps including Uber, Venmo, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp.1Google Web App Activity Lawsuit. Rodriguez v. Google LLC FAQ
The mechanism, according to the complaint, was code Google had written and distributed to app developers: the Firebase Software Development Kit and the Google Mobile Ads SDK. These toolkits were embedded in thousands of third-party apps and transmitted user activity back to Google regardless of whether the user had opted out.1Google Web App Activity Lawsuit. Rodriguez v. Google LLC FAQ
The case was filed in 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS, and assigned to Chief Judge Richard Seeborg.2Justia. Rodriguez v. Google LLC, 3:2020cv04688 Three claims went to trial, all under California law: invasion of privacy under the state constitution, common-law intrusion upon seclusion, and violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.1Google Web App Activity Lawsuit. Rodriguez v. Google LLC FAQ
Who Is in the Class
Judge Seeborg certified two sub-classes on January 3, 2024: Android device users and non-Android device users. The class period runs from July 1, 2016 through September 23, 2024, and encompasses roughly 98 million people.1Google Web App Activity Lawsuit. Rodriguez v. Google LLC FAQ3Woods Rogers. Rodriguez v. Google LLC Analysis The court found the class could be tried collectively because Google’s disclosures and the technical behavior of its SDKs were uniform across users, and every class member had done the same thing: switched off the sWAA setting.4Cyrilla. Order Granting Motion to Certify Class
Four named plaintiffs served as class representatives at trial: Anibal Rodriguez, Sal Cataldo, Julian Santiago, and Susan Lynn Harvey.5Google Web App Activity Lawsuit. Motion for Summary Judgment
What the Jury Decided
After a three-week trial, the jury deliberated about ten hours over two days before returning a mixed verdict. It found Google liable on two claims: invasion of privacy under the California Constitution and common-law intrusion upon seclusion. It rejected the Computer Data Access and Fraud Act claim. It also rejected Google’s affirmative defense of consent.3Woods Rogers. Rodriguez v. Google LLC Analysis
The compensatory award of $425,651,947 works out to roughly four dollars per class member, far below the plaintiffs’ $31 billion damages model. The jury declined to award punitive damages, finding Google had not acted with malice. On disgorgement of profits, the jury returned an advisory verdict against the plaintiffs; Judge Seeborg had ruled before trial that disgorgement was an equitable remedy for the court itself to decide.6U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Rodriguez v. Google LLC Order on Decertification and Disgorgement
What Google Argued
Google denied all claims. Its central defense was that the data collected through the SDKs was “nonpersonal, pseudonymous,” stripped of identifying information and not linked to any individual, and therefore did not violate anyone’s privacy. Google’s product lead disputed the plaintiffs’ description of “shadow accounts” for opted-out users, and defense experts testified that the company’s systems were designed to prevent collection or use of personally identifiable information from these flows.7Syracuse Law Review. Someone Is Always Watching: Implications of Google’s WAA Privacy Case
Google also argued consent. Its position was that privacy policies and the WAA interface itself, including “Are You Sure?” confirmation windows and links to additional detail, had adequately informed users that turning off the toggle did not stop all anonymous data collection. At trial, one of Google’s expert witnesses testified that the company had chosen not to disclose the continued collection more explicitly because doing so might cause “cognitive overload” for users.8Law360. Rodriguez et al v. Google LLC et al The jury rejected the consent defense.
What Happened After the Verdict
Disgorgement Denied
The plaintiffs asked Judge Seeborg to order Google to pay an additional $2.36 billion in disgorgement of profits on top of the jury’s damages. On January 30, 2026, the judge denied the request. He ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to show any “prospective, irreparable harm” that would justify a permanent injunction, that their estimate of Google’s allegedly ill-gotten gains was “insufficiently supported,” and that they had not shown an overall entitlement to disgorgement.9Reuters. Google Defeats Bid for Billions of Dollars in New Penalties in US Privacy Class Action
Decertification Denied
Google moved to decertify the class after trial, arguing liability depended on individualized proof rather than common evidence. In the same January 30, 2026 order, Judge Seeborg rejected that argument, finding that the “core of Plaintiffs’ theory” — that Google’s decision to collect data after representing it would not was “inherently offensive” — was “perfectly susceptible to collective proof.” Google’s related request to vacate the verdict also failed.6U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Rodriguez v. Google LLC Order on Decertification and Disgorgement
Attorney Fees
On March 31, 2026, class counsel filed a motion seeking approximately $146.7 million in fees, one-third of a final damages figure of $440.4 million that includes the verdict plus pre-judgment interest. Counsel also requested $12.4 million in litigation expenses and $135,000 in service awards for the class representatives.10Bloomberg Law. Lawyers Seek $147 Million Fee in Google Privacy Button Case Class members have until July 30, 2026 to file written objections to the fee application.1Google Web App Activity Lawsuit. Rodriguez v. Google LLC FAQ
Where the Payout Stands
As of mid-2026, no money has been distributed and no claims process has been established. The court has entered a judgment requiring Google to pay the verdict plus interest, which totaled $440,345,685.40 as of March 2, 2026, with interest continuing to accrue.11Google Web App Activity Lawsuit. Rodriguez v. Google LLC Google has said it intends to appeal, arguing that the verdict “misunderstands how our products work.”7Syracuse Law Review. Someone Is Always Watching: Implications of Google’s WAA Privacy Case
There is no deadline for class members to file claims, because no claims are being accepted yet. The official case website states that if funds eventually become available, class members will be notified with instructions.11Google Web App Activity Lawsuit. Rodriguez v. Google LLC If Google’s appeal succeeds in whole or in part, the amount available for distribution could shrink or disappear. Roughly four dollars per class member is the ceiling before fees, expenses, and any reduction on appeal.
Why the Case Matters
Google’s defense leaned heavily on the argument that pseudonymized data, stripped of direct personal identifiers, was not “personal” enough to trigger privacy claims. The jury disagreed. It found that collecting that data after a user explicitly opted out of tracking was an invasion of privacy regardless of how Google labeled the information. That result suggests companies cannot rely on technical data-obfuscation measures as a legal shield when their own interfaces promise users a level of control they are not actually getting.3Woods Rogers. Rodriguez v. Google LLC Analysis How durable that principle proves to be depends on the appeal.
The verdict arrived alongside other significant privacy actions against Google. About a month before the Rodriguez verdict, a federal jury in the same courthouse found Meta Platforms liable for illegally collecting data from users of the period-tracking app Flo.12Bloomberg Law. Google Violated Privacy of Nearly 100 Million Users, Jury Finds In May 2025, the Texas Attorney General secured a $1.375 billion settlement with Google over geolocation tracking, Chrome “Incognito” mode representations, and the capture of biometric data including voiceprints and facial geometry — the largest privacy-related recovery by any individual state against Google.13Texas Attorney General. Attorney General Ken Paxton Secures Historic $1.375 Billion Settlement With Google Related to Texans’ Data The Texas settlement is a separate matter and does not affect what Rodriguez class members may eventually receive.