Rodriguez et al. v. Google LLC

Rodriguez et al. v. Google LLC
CourtUnited States District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case name Anibal Rodriguez et al. v. Google LLC
Docket nos.3:20-cv-04688-RS
Case history
Prior actionsMotion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part (May 21, 2021); remaining CIPA and contract claims dismissed (January 25, 2022); class certified (January 3, 2024); class definition clarified (April 5, 2024); summary judgment denied (January 7, 2025); jury verdict for plaintiffs (September 3, 2025)
Subsequent actionsFurther proceedings ongoing; appeal anticipated
Court membership
Judge sittingRichard Seeborg
Case opinions
Plaintiffs' requests for injunctive relief and disgorgement denied; Google's motion to decertify the class denied
Decision byRichard Seeborg
Keywords
  • class action
  • data privacy
  • invasion of privacy
  • intrusion upon seclusion
  • CDAFA
  • Web & App Activity
  • Firebase
  • Google Mobile Ads

Rodriguez et al. v. Google LLC is a privacy class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.[1] Filed on July 14, 2020, the case concerns allegations that Google continued to collect app-activity.[2][3] In September 2025, a jury found Google liable on two California privacy claims and awarded more than $425 million in compensatory damages.[4][5]

In January 2026, Judge Richard Seeborg denied the plaintiffs’ requests for injunctive relief and disgorgement and denied Google’s motion to decertify the class, leaving the damages verdict in place.[6][7]

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that Google’s disclosures led users to believe that turning off Web & App Activity would stop Google from collecting certain data from non-Google mobile apps.[8][3] The disputed transmissions came from non-Google apps that used Google's Firebase and Google Mobile Ads software development kits.[5][9] Google acknowledged collecting the data, but argued that, for some users, it was retained only for record-keeping, advertising-service administration, or analytics for app developers.[10]

The named plaintiffs were Anibal Rodriguez, Sal Cataldo, Julian Santiago, and Susan Lynn Harvey.[11] The case proceeded on three California claims: invasion of privacy under the California Constitution, intrusion upon seclusion, and violation of the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA).[11]

Procedural history

In May 2021, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg granted in part and denied in part Google's motion to dismiss.[12] The court allowed the plaintiffs’ section 631 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), CDAFA, intrusion upon seclusion, and the California constitutional privacy claims to proceed, but dismissed the federal Wiretap Act claim, the section 632 CIPA claim, and the Unfair Competition Law claim.[12][13]

The plaintiffs were represented by a group of firms that included Morgan & Morgan, Boies Schiller Flexner, and Susman Godfrey.[14] Lawyers appearing for the plaintiffs included Morgan & Morgan attorneys John A. Yanchunis and Ryan J. McGee.[14]

In January 2022, the court dismissed the remaining section 631 CIPA claim and the plaintiffs' contract theory.[13] The court held that the complaint still did not adequately plead interception for purposes of section 631 and rejected the argument that use of the Web & App Activity settings created a unilateral contract. The case then proceeded to the California privacy and CDAFA claims, which later went to class certification and trial.[13][11]

Class certification

On January 3, 2024, the court certified nationwide classes under Rules 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2). The certified classes covered users who had turned off Web & App Activity, or a related supplemental Web & App Activity setting, but whose activity from non-Google mobile apps was still transmitted to Google through Firebase or Google Mobile Ads SDKs; separate classes were certified for Android and non-Android devices.[8][11] The ruling affected roughly 100 million Android and iPhone users and about 1.5 million apps.[8]

In April 2024, the court granted in part Google’s motion to clarify the class definition. The ruling did not end class treatment, but modified the definitions in part while the case remained on a class-wide basis.[15]

Summary judgment and trial

On January 7, 2025, the court denied Google’s motion for summary judgment, sending to trial issues including consent, the adequacy of Google’s disclosures, users’ reasonable expectations of privacy, and whether Google’s conduct was highly offensive or unauthorized under California law.[2][3] The case proceeded to trial in August 2025.[2][8]

The plaintiffs were represented at trial by lawyers from Morgan & Morgan, Boies Schiller Flexner, and Susman Godfrey.[16] They alleged that Google had accessed and stored app-activity data over an eight-year period after users had disabled the relevant setting.[4] Google argued that the data was pseudonymous and was not linked to users' identities in the manner alleged by the plaintiffs.[4][10]

Verdict

On September 3, 2025, the jury found Google liable for invasion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion, but not liable on the CDAFA claim.[4][7] It awarded $425,651,947 in actual damages and no punitive or nominal damages.[5][9] In post-trial rulings, the court stated that the jury had also rejected Google’s consent defense.[7]

The certified class included about 98 million Google users and 174 million devices.[4][10] It also encompassed about 98 million smartphones in the United States used between July 1, 2016, and September 23, 2024, amounting to roughly $4 per device.[17] Google said it would appeal.[4][17]

Post-trial proceedings

After the verdict, the plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction and $2.36 billion disgorgement, which they characterized as a conservative estimate of Google's profits from the challenged conduct. Google moved to decertify the class and to vacate the verdict.[18][19]

The plaintiffs' post-trial counsel continued to include Morgan & Morgan, with Yanchunis and McGee appearing alongside David Boies and Mark Mao of Boies Schiller Flexner and Bill Carmody and Shawn Rabin of Susman Godfrey.[20]

On January 30, 2026, Judge Seeborg denied the plaintiffs' request for equitable relief and denied Google's motion to decertify the class.[6][7] The court held that the plaintiffs had not established entitlement to the requested injunction or disgorgement and rejected Google's effort to undo class treatment. The damages verdict therefore remained in place.[6][7]

The case remained pending after the January 30, 2026 post-trial order, and Reuters reported that Google planned to appeal.[1][6]

References

  1. 1 2 "Rodriguez et al v. Google LLC et al | Northern District of California | United States District Court". cand.uscourts.gov. 2020-07-14. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
  2. 1 2 3 Stempel, Jonathan (2025-01-08). "Google must face mobile phone privacy class action, possible trial". Reuters. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
  3. 1 2 3 "Rodriguez et al v. Google LLC et al, No. 3:2020cv04688 - Document 445 (N.D. Cal. 2025)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Google must pay $425 million in class action over privacy, jury rules". Reuters. 2025-09-04. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
  5. 1 2 3 "Google facing $425.7 million in damages for nearly a decade of improper smartphone snooping". AP News. 2025-09-05. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Scarcella, Mike (2026-01-31). "Google defeats bid for billions of dollars of new penalties in Us privacy class action". Reuters. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF AND DENYING MOTION TO DECERTIFY THE CLASS" (PDF). govinfo.gov. 2026-01-30.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Cutler, Joyce (2024-01-05). "Google Must Face Privacy On/Off Switch Suit as a Class Action". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
  9. 1 2 Attridge, Margaret (2025-09-03). "Jury slams Google over app data collection to tune of $425 million". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
  10. 1 2 3 Roth, Emma (2025-09-04). "Jury orders Google to pay $425 million for violating user privacy". The Verge. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
  11. 1 2 3 4 "Rodriguez v. Google LLC" (PDF). CYRILLA. 2024-01-03.
  12. 1 2 "Rodriguez et al v. Google LLC et al, No. 3:2020cv04688 - Document 109 (N.D. Cal. 2021)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
  13. 1 2 3 "Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS" (PDF). 2022-01-25.
  14. 1 2 "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 3:20-CV-04688-RS JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING A BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR GOOGLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT" (PDF). GovInfo. 2021-07-06. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
  15. ↑ "Rodriguez et al v. Google LLC et al, No. 3:2020cv04688 - Document 384 (N.D. Cal. 2024)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
  16. ↑ Thomas, David; Scarcella, Mike (2025-09-05). "Google trial ends with $425 million verdict after Cooley inherits privacy case". Reuters. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
  17. 1 2 "Google facing $425.7 million in damages for nearly a decade of improper smartphone snooping". AP News. 2025-09-05. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
  18. ↑ Scarcella, Mike (2025-10-23). "Consumers seek $2.36 billion from Google after privacy verdict". Reuters. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
  19. ↑ Attridge, Margaret (2026-01-30). "Judge denies disgorgement, decertification efforts in Google privacy suit". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
  20. ↑ Scarcella, Mike (2025-11-21). "Google fights bid for billion in profits, curbs on data collection in privacy cases". Reuters. Retrieved 2026-04-17.
This page is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.