Google: Difference between revisions

==Anti-consumer legal cases==

Google's "Web & App Activity" (WAA) setting had the ability to be paused. Reportedly, despite this setting being paused by consumers, Google would continue to collect consumer data regardless of consent.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Rodriguez v. Google LLC |url=https://www.googlewebappactivitylawsuit.com/Home/FAQ#faq1 |url-status=live |access-date=5 Apr 2025 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251011171640/https://googlewebappactivitylawsuit.com/Home/FAQ |archive-date=11 Oct 2025}}</ref> Google collected mobile device data for eight years from users who opted out of tracking under the WAA.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Staab |first=Theresa |date=18 Sep 2025 |title=Someone is Always Watching: Implications of Google's WAA Privacy Case |url=https://lawreview.syr.edu/someone-is-always-watching-implications-of-googles-waa-privacy-case/ |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=Syracuse Law Review}}</ref> The dates of use/activity in question were between July 1, 2016 and September 23, 2024.<ref>{{Cite web |date=23 Oct 2024 |title=FAQs: Google Web App Activity lawsuit |url=https://help.wfu.edu/support/solutions/articles/13000825158-faqs-google-web-app-activity-lawsuit |url-status=live |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=Wake Forest University}}</ref> On September 3, 2025, the San Francisco Federal Court jury held Google liable two of three claims of privacy invasion. The plaintiffs were awarded $425.7 million in compensatory damages for invasion of privacy, totaling around $4 per person for the approximate 98 million affected users, but since the jury found that Google did not act with malicious intent, no punitive damages were awarded.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6">{{Cite news |last=Mollman |first=Brittney |last2=Sosnicki |first2=Luke |date=2025-09-05 |title=Federal Jury Awards $425.7 Million in Google Privacy Case: Key Takeaways on Consent Design and Litigation Risk |url=https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/federal-jury-awards-425-7-million-in-google-privacy-case-key-takeaways-on-consent-design-and-litigation-risk/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |work=Thompson Coburn LLP}}</ref> Google filed an appeal to this verdict "on the basis that the jury misunderstood the functionality of its privacy tools and that users were adequately informed through layered disclosures and consent flows"<ref name=":6" />. Claim submission may begin once the appeals process finishes<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-11-05 |title=$425M Verdict in Google Web & App Activity Privacy Class Action Lawsuit — Do You Qualify? |url=https://openclassactions.com/settlements/google-web-and-app-activity-privacy-class-action-lawsuit.php |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=OpenClassActions}}</ref>.

On the 11th of November, 2025, Thomas Thele filed a demand for jury trial in a class action complaint against Google LLC. In the filing it states that "on or about October 10, 2025, Google secretly turned on Gemini for all its users’ Gmail, Chat, and Meet accounts, enabling AI to track its users’ private communications contained in those platforms without the users’ knowledge or consent" <ref>{{Cite web |last=Wolfson |first=Tina |last2=Ahdoot |first2=Robert |last3=Maya |first3=Theodore |last4=Brown |first4=Alyssa |date=2025-11-11 |title=UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL |url=https://www.classaction.org/media/thele-v-google-complaint_2.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=ClassAction}}</ref>. The suit "alleges that Google is violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act"<ref>{{Cite web |last=Burnson |first=Robert |date=2025-11-12 |title=Google sued for allegedly using Gemini AI to secretly track user data |url=https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-news/google-sued-for-allegedly-using-gemini-ai-to-secretly-track-user-data-125111200603_1.html |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=Business Standard}}</ref>, a law enacted in 1967 which dictates the terms by which advances in technology can be used for the purpose of invading the privacy of citizens<ref>{{Cite web |date=1967 |title=CHAPTER 1.5. Invasion of Privacy |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&part=1.&title=15.&chapter=1.5 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=California Legislative Information}}</ref>. The defendant, Google LLC, filed a Motion to Dismiss which is scheduled to be heard on May 1, 2026<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-04-27 |title=Thele v. Google LLC |url=https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61129560/Thele_v_Google_LLC |url-status=live |access-date=2026-05-05 |website=PacerMonitor}}</ref>.

Google takes a 30% share of all revenue made through all sales made on the Play Store, which is a comparable figure to other digital storefronts such as the [[Apple App Store]] and [[Steam]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Marks |first=Tom |date=7 Oct 2019 |title=Report: Steam's 30% Cut Is Actually the Industry Standard |url=https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard |url-status=live |website=ign.com |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251211034837/https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard |archive-date=11 Dec 2025}}</ref> On 13th August 2020, [[Epic Games]] CEO Tim Sweeney updated both iOS and Android versions of ''Fortnite'' to redirect users to Epic Games' storefront to purchase in-game currency ("V-Bucks") alongside the respective first-party storefront, with incentives including cheaper prices if buying from Epic Games directly. This violated the Terms of Service of both Apple and Google's storefronts, and ''Fortnite'' was removed from both app stores the same day.

Epic Games would use this motion to file federal lawsuits against both Google and Apple, citing that these practices meant that the companies were engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Google lost in the lawsuit, but attempted to appeal the decision, in which they lost again.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hollister |first=Sean |date=31 July 2025 |title=Epic just won its Google lawsuit again, and Android may never be the same |url=https://www.theverge.com/news/716856/epic-v-google-win-in-appeals-court |access-date=21 August 2025 |work=The Verge |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260111151936/https://www.theverge.com/news/716856/epic-v-google-win-in-appeals-court |archive-date=11 Jan 2026}}</ref>

Starting in January of 2026, [[Meta]] (Facebook and [[Instagram]]) and [[Google]] ([[YouTube]]) faced legal claims of their platforms being intentionally addictive and harmful to children. [[ByteDance]] ([[TikTok]]) and Snap ([[Snapchat]]) were named initially, but settled for undisclosed terms before the trial began. A 19-year-old girl, referred to by the initials "KGM" or Kaley, and two other plaintiffs were selected for bellwether trials—test cases tried as part of an MDL.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Huamani |first=Kaitlyn |last2=Ortutay |first2=Barbara |date=9 Feb 2026 |title=Landmark trial accusing tech giants of harming children with addictive social media begins |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/landmark-trial-accusing-tech-giants-of-harming-children-with-addictive-social-media-begins |url-status=live |access-date=25 Mar 2026 |website=PBS News}}</ref>  On March 25, 2026, the California jury concluded in KGM's case that [[Meta]] and Google were guilty of negligent for their apps—[[Instagram]], Facebook, and [[YouTube]]—being deliberately built to be addictive, which the companies' executives knew this and failed to protect their youngest users.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Allyn |first=Bobby |date=25 Mar 2026 |title=Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial |url=https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict |url-status=live |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=npr}}</ref> [[Meta]] was charged to pay $4.2 million for compensatory and punitive damages, and charged Google $1.8 million.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kang |first=Cecilia |last2=Mac |first2=Ryan |last3=Tan |first3=Eli |date=25 Mar 2026 |title=Meta and YouTube Found Negligent in Landmark Social Media Addiction Case |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-trial-verdict.html |url-status=live |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=The New York Times}}</ref>