Google settles Texas data privacy lawsuit for $1.4 billion
Agencies
Google will pay $1.4 billion to Texas to settle claims the company collected users' data without permission, the state's attorney general has announced.
In 2022, Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Google, saying the search giant collected millions of biometric identifiers, including voiceprints and records of face geometry, through its products and services like Google Photos, Google Assistant and Nest Hub Max.
Paxton described the settlement as sending a message to tech companies that he will not allow them to make money off of 'selling away our rights and freedoms.' 'In Texas, Big Tech is not above the law.' Paxton said in a statement Friday. 'For years, Google secretly tracked people's movements, private searches, and even their voiceprints and facial geometry through their products and services. I fought back and won.'
Google spokesperson José Castañeda said the agreement settles an array of 'old claims,' some of which relate to product policies the company has already changed.
'We are pleased to put them behind us, and we will continue to build robust privacy controls into our services,' he said in a statement.
Paxton said the $1.4 billion is the largest amount won by any state in a settlement with Google over this type of data-privacy violations.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Qatar Tribune
5 days ago
- Qatar Tribune
Google steps up AI game with ‘AI mode' and Veo 3
Agencies Even though at the start of the unprecedented artificial intelligence race that kicked off at the end of 2022 and beginning of 2023, search giant Google looked like it lagged behind the Microsoft/OpenAI team and later on, Meta, the cards now appear to be reshuffling once again. In recent months and weeks, Google has become more aggressive in asserting it has caught up to competitors, particularly witnessed through the unveiling of 'AI Mode' and a new video-focused model, 'Veo 3.' In tech circles, the 'AI Mode' has been seen not only as a new feature but as a sort of paradigm and a significant addition to the company's AI offering that could actually put Google back on track to fight rising competition. Experts also consider it 'a strategic adaptation aligned with the rise of AI-powered search,' and 'an adjustment to evolving tech habits.' Google itself says it is 'our most powerful AI search, with more advanced reasoning and multimodality, and the ability to go deeper through follow-up questions and helpful links to the web.' 'AI Mode has the potential to transform user experience through contextual responses and extensive data integration,' said Alp Cenk Arslan, an AI and security expert and an assistant professor at the Turkish National Police Academy. However, he argued that claiming that this move 'defends' Google's leadership in the search engine market 'may overlook current competitive dynamics.' He cited that its rivals, like Perplexity AI and OpenAI's SearchGPT, are pushing user habits by offering innovative solutions in niche areas such as academic research. Arlsan noted it's also important to consider the 2025–2026 search trends. 'In these years, search engines are likely to shift from traditional keyword-based models to AI-supported, multimodal systems' he told Daily Sabah.
Qatar Tribune
01-06-2025
- Qatar Tribune
Google makes case for keeping Chrome browser
Agencies Google on Friday urged a U.S. judge to reject the notion of making it spin off its Chrome browser to weaken its dominance in online search. Rival attorneys made their final arguments before U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who is considering 'remedies' to impose after making a landmark decision last year that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in search. U.S. government attorneys have called on Mehta to order Google divest itself of Chrome browser, contending that artificial intelligence is poised to ramp up the tech giant's dominance as the go-to window into the internet. They also want Google barred from agreements with partners such as Apple and Samsung to distribute its search tools, which was the focus of the suit against the Silicon Valley internet giant. Three weeks of testimony ended early in May, with Friday devoted to rival sides parsing points of law and making their arguments before Mehta in a courtroom in Washington. John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, told Mehta that there was no evidence presented showing people would have opted for a different search engine if no exclusivity deals had been in place. Schmidtlein noted that Verizon installed Chrome on smartphones even though the U.S. telecom titan owned Yahoo! search engine and was not bound by a contract with Google. Of the 100 or so witnesses heard at trial, not one said 'if I had more flexibility, I would have installed Bing' search engine from Microsoft, the Google attorney told the judge. Department of Justice attorney David Dahlquist countered that Apple, which was paid billions of dollars to make Chrome the default browser on iPhones, 'repeatedly asked for more flexibility' but was denied by Google. Google contends that the United States has gone way beyond the scope of the suit by recommending a spinoff of Chrome, and holding open the option to force a sale of its Android mobile operating system. 'Forcing the sale of Chrome or banning default agreements wouldn't foster competition,' said Cato Institute senior fellow in technology policy Jennifer Huddleston. 'It would hobble innovation, hurt smaller players, and leave users with worse products.' The potential of Chrome being weakened or spun off comes as rivals such as Microsoft, ChatGPT and Perplexity put generative artificial intelligence (AI) to work fetching information from the internet in response to user queries. The online search antitrust suit was filed against Google some five years ago, before ChatGPT made its debut, triggering AI fervor. Google is among the tech companies investing heavily to be a leader in AI, and is weaving the technology into search and other online offerings. Testimony at trial included Apple vice president of services Eddy Cue revealing that Google's search traffic on Apple devices declined in April for the first time in over two decades. Cue testified that Google was losing ground to AI alternatives like ChatGPT and Perplexity. Mehta pressed rival attorneys regarding the potential for Google to share data as proposed by the DoJ in its recommended remedies. 'We're not looking to kneecap Google,' DoJ attorney Adam Severt told the judge. 'But, we are looking to make sure someone can compete with Google.' Schmidtlein contended that the data Google is being asked to share contains much more than just information about people's online searches, saying it would be tantamount to handing over the fruit of investments made over the course of decades. 'There are countless algorithms that Google engineers have invented that have nothing to do with click and query data,' Schmidtlein said. 'Their remedy says we want to be on par with all of your ingenuity, and, respectfully your honor, that is not proportional to the conduct of this case.'
Al Jazeera
30-05-2025
- Al Jazeera
US gov't and Google face off in search monopoly case
Google has been back in federal court to fend off the United States Department of Justice's attempt to topple its internet empire at the same time it is navigating a pivotal shift to artificial intelligence (AI) that could undercut its power. On Friday, the legal and technological threats facing Google were among the key issues being dissected during the closing arguments of a legal proceeding that will determine the changes imposed upon the company in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared an illegal monopoly by US District Judge Amit Mehta last year. Brandishing evidence presented during a recent three-week stretch of hearings, Justice Department lawyers are attempting to persuade Mehta to order a radical shake-up that includes a ban on Google paying to lock its search engine in as the default on smart devices and an order requiring the company to sell its Chrome browser. Google lawyers say only minor concessions are needed, especially as the upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already are reshaping the search landscape, as alternative, conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice's four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier. Mehta used Friday's hearing to ask probing and pointed questions to lawyers for both sides while hinting that he was seeking a middle ground between the two camps' proposed remedies. 'We're not looking to kneecap Google,' the judge said, adding that the goal was to 'kickstart' competitors' ability to challenge the search giant's dominance. After the daylong closing arguments, Mehta will spend much of the next several months mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labor Day in the US (September 1). Google has already promised to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it cannot take until the judge orders a remedy. While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry's future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google. The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself will not rein in Google's power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that's the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc, is valued at $2 trillion. Mehta indicated in court Friday that he was still undecided on how much AI's potential to shake up the search market should be incorporated in his forthcoming ruling. 'This is what I've been struggling with,' Mehta said early in the hearing. Justice prosecutor David Dahlquist urged the judge to issue forward-thinking remedies that would 'pry open' the search market to competition and not allow Google to use its search monopoly to unfairly benefit itself in the AI race. Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine into an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet's main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity. The Justice Department contends a divestiture of the Chrome browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai helped build nearly 20 years ago would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google continuing to amass massive volumes of browser traffic and personal data that could be leveraged to retain its dominance in the AI era. Executives from both OpenAI and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders its sale. Google's lawyer John Schmidtlein said on Friday that AI companies should 'get to work' on their own products rather than try to persuade the court to give them unfair access to Google's innovations. The debate over Google's fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups. Apple, which collects more than $20bn annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department's proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements. Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own research, and that the ban might make Google even more powerful because the company would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would end up choosing its search engine anyway. The Cupertino, California, company also told the judge a ban would not compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google. In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department's proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company's business. Meanwhile, former Federal Trade Commission officials James Cooper and Andrew Stivers warned that another proposal, which would require Google to share its data with rival search engines, 'does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship' of their personal information. The App Association, a group that represents mostly small software developers, also advised Mehta not to adopt the Justice Department's proposed changes because of the ripple effects they would have across the tech industry. Hobbling Google in the way the Justice Department envisions would make it more difficult for startups to realise their goal of being acquired, the App Association wrote. 'Developers will be overcome by uncertainty' if Google is torn apart, the group argues.
