Google Hit With $314 Million US Verdict in Cellular Data Class Action
The jury agreed with the plaintiffs that Alphabet's Google was liable for sending and receiving information from the devices without permission while they were idle, causing what the lawsuit had called "mandatory and unavoidable burdens shouldered by Android device users for Google's benefit."
Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said in a statement that the company would appeal, and that the verdict "misunderstands services that are critical to the security, performance, and reliability of Android devices."
The plaintiffs' attorney Glen Summers said the verdict "forcefully vindicates the merits of this case and reflects the seriousness of Google's misconduct."
The plaintiffs filed the class action in state court in 2019 on behalf of an estimated 14 million Californians. They argued that Google collected information from idle phones running its Android operating system for company uses like targeted advertising, consuming Android users' cellular data at their expense.
Google told the court that no Android users were harmed by the data transfers and that users consented to them in the company's terms of service and privacy policies.
Another group filed a separate lawsuit in federal court in San Jose, bringing the same claims against Google on behalf of Android users in the other 49 states. That case is scheduled for trial in April 2026.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
3 Dead, 10 Injured in South Philadelphia Shooting and a Person Is in Custody, Police Say
Three people were killed and 10 others injured in a shooting early Monday in a South Philadelphia neighborhood, authorities said. The three people who died were adults, and two of the wounded were juveniles, Police Commissioner Kevin Bethel told reporters. The shooting happened shortly before 1 a.m. along a residential street in Grays Ferry, he said. 'We have numerous rounds that were shot on the block,' Bethel said. Police said one person with a weapon was taken into custody. Bethel said police had already responded to the same block late Saturday into early Sunday and some arrests were made. It wasn't immediately known what prompted the shooting. 'This is coward want-to-be-thugs stuff,' Bethel said. The shooting happened after other shootings in the city and elsewhere around the US over the Fourth of July weekend. Those included at least eight people struck by gunfire near a South Philadelphia nightclub.
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
A Vermont dairy farm was raided. The mixed messages from Washington since then have increased fears
MONTPELIER: After six 12-hour shifts milking cows, José Molina-Aguilar's lone day off was hardly relaxing. On April 21, he and seven co-workers were arrested on a Vermont dairy farm in what advocates say was one of the state's largest-ever immigration raids. 'I saw through the window of the house that immigration were already there, inside the farm, and that's when they detained us,' he said in a recent interview. 'I was in the process of asylum, and even with that, they didn't respect the document that I was still holding in my hands.' Four of the workers were swiftly deported to Mexico. Molina-Aguilar, released after a month in a Texas detention center with his asylum case still pending, is now working at a different farm and speaking out. 'We must fight as a community so that we can all have, and keep fighting for, the rights that we have in this country,' he said. The owner of the targeted farm declined to comment. But Brett Stokes, a lawyer representing the detained workers, said the raid sent shock waves through the entire Northeast agriculture industry. 'These strong-arm tactics that we're seeing and these increases in enforcement, whether legal or not, all play a role in stoking fear in the community,' said Stokes, director of the Center for Justice Reform Clinic at Vermont Law and Graduate School. That fear remains given the mixed messages coming from the White House. President Donald Trump, who campaigned on a promise to deport millions of immigrants working in the US illegally, last month paused arrests at farms, restaurants and hotels. But less than a week later, the assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security said worksite enforcement would continue. Such uncertainty is causing problems in big states like California, where farms produce more than three-quarters of the country's fruit and more than a third of its vegetables. But it's also affecting small states like Vermont, where dairy is as much a part of the state's identity as its famous maple syrup. Nearly two-thirds of all milk production in New England comes from Vermont, where more than half the state's farmland is dedicated to dairy and dairy crops. There are roughly 113,000 cows and 7,500 goats spread across 480 farms, according to the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, which pegs the industry's annual economic impact at $5.4 billion. That impact has more than doubled in the last decade, with widespread help from immigrant labor. More than 90 percent of the farms surveyed for the agency's recent report employed migrant workers. Among them is Wuendy Bernardo, who has lived on a Vermont dairy farm for more than a decade and has an active application to stop her deportation on humanitarian grounds: Bernardo is the primary caregiver for her five children and her two orphaned younger sisters, according to a 2023 letter signed by dozens of state lawmakers. Hundreds of Bernardo's supporters showed up for her most recent check-in with immigration officials. 'It's really difficult because every time I come here, I don't know if I'll be going back to my family or not,' she said after being told to return in a month. Like Molina-Aguilar, Rossy Alfaro also worked 12-hour days with one day off per week on a Vermont farm. Now an advocate with Migrant Justice, she said the dairy industry would collapse without immigrant workers. 'It would all go down,' she said. 'There are many people working long hours, without complaining, without being able to say, 'I don't want to work.' They just do the job.'
Al Arabiya
3 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Trial of professors protecting pro-Palestinian students from Trump deportations begins
Groups representing US university professors seeking to protect international students and faculty who engage in pro-Palestinian advocacy from being deported are set to do what no other litigants challenging the Trump administration's hardline immigration agenda have done so far: Take it to trial. A two-week non-jury trial in the professors' case scheduled to kick off on Monday in Boston marks a rarity in the hundreds of lawsuits that have been filed nationally challenging Republican President Donald Trump's efforts to carry out mass deportations, slash spending and reshape the federal government. In many of those cases, judges have issued quick rulings early on in the proceedings without any witnesses being called to testify. But US District Judge William Young in keeping with his long-standing practice instead ordered a trial in the professors' case, saying it was the 'best way to get at truth.' The lawsuit was filed in March after immigration authorities arrested recent Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, the first target of Trump's effort to deport non-citizen students with pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel views. Since then, the administration has canceled the visas of hundreds of other students and scholars and ordered the arrest of some, including Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts University student who was taken into custody by masked and plainclothes agents after co-writing an opinion piece criticizing her school's response to Israel's war in Gaza. In their cases and others, judges have ordered the release of students detained by immigration authorities after they argued the administration retaliated against them for their pro-Palestinian advocacy in violation of the free speech guarantees of the US Constitution's First Amendment. Their arrests form the basis of the case before Young, which was filed by the American Association of University Professors and its chapters at Harvard, Rutgers and New York University, and the Middle East Studies Association. They allege the State Department and Department of Homeland Security adopted a policy of revoking visas for non-citizen students and faculty who engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy and arresting, detaining and deporting them as well. That policy, they say, was adopted after Trump signed executive orders in January directing the agencies to protect Americans from non-citizens who 'espouse hateful ideology' and to 'vigorously' combat anti-Semitism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in late March said he had revoked more than 300 visas and warned that the Trump administration was looking every day for 'these lunatics.' The goal, the plaintiffs say, has been to suppress the types of protests that have roiled college campuses after Israel launched its war in Gaza. Trump administration officials have frequently spoken about the efforts to target student protesters for visa revocations. Yet in court, the administration has defended itself by arguing the plaintiffs are challenging a deportation policy that does not exist and cannot point to any statute, rule, regulation or directive codifying it. 'We don't deport people based on ideology,' Homeland Security Department spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem 'has made it clear that anyone who thinks they can come to America and hide behind the First Amendment to advocate for anti-American and anti-Semitic violence and terrorism - think again. You are not welcome here,' McLaughlin said. The trial will determine whether the administration has violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment free speech rights. If Young concludes it has, he will determine a remedy in a second phase of the case. Young has described the lawsuit as 'an important free speech case' and said that as alleged in the plaintiffs' complaint, 'it is hard to imagine a policy more focused on intimidating its targets from practicing protected political speech.' The case is the second Trump-era legal challenge so far that has gone to trial before Young, an 84-year-old appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan. While other Trump-era cases have been resolved through motions and arguments in court, the veteran jurist has long espoused the value of trials and in a recent order lamented the 'virtual abandonment by the federal judiciary of any sense that its fact-finding processes are exceptional. Young last month after another non-jury trial delivered civil rights advocates and Democratic-led states a win by ordering the reinstatement of hundreds of National Institutes of Health research grants that were unlawfully terminated because of their perceived promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion.
