$314M verdict against Google's data use sets precedent, plaintiffs say

An attorney who secured a $314 million jury verdict against Google in a privacy infringement class action said Wednesday they had evidence to win $500 million more in damages and are not worried about the company's promise to appeal.

The win sets a powerful precedent in the emerging area of data-as-property law and could open the door to a wave of class actions challenging covert data practices, the plaintiffs' attorneys said in a news release.

A Santa Clara County jury ruled Tuesday that Google's Android operating system secretly transmitted a wide range of information about users to Google servers without notice or consent, even when users were not on Wi-Fi and consumed their cellular data, the plaintiffs' law firm said.

"It was a unanimous decision that very strongly held that the cellular data at issue was property," said plaintiffs' attorney Glen Summers of Bartlit Beck. "And the fact that the 9th Circuit has considered a lot of the fundamental issues in the case already and resolved them in our favor unanimously, bodes very very well for the prospects of this decision, withstanding any appeal."

Google will appeal, Google spokesman José Castañeda said in an emailed statement Wednesday. "We strongly disagree with today's decision. This ruling is a setback for users, as it misunderstands services that are critical to the security, performance, and reliability of Android devices." Csupo, et al. v. Alphabet, Inc., 19CV352557 (S. Clara Super. Ct. filed Aug. 9, 2019).

Whitty Somvichian and Michael Attansio of Cooley LLP represented Google.

Summers, lead counsel for the class of 14 million Android users in California in the six-year-long case, said in a phone interview Wednesday, "We don't see any legal or evidentiary basis for an appeal. The trial judge was very careful and did a very good job managing the trial. The presentation of evidence was very fair," Summers added.

"The jury found that unauthorized consumption of cellular data by a tech company constitutes 'conversion' -- a legal theory typically reserved for theft or misuse of tangible property, according to the news release.

Summers, who expects to represent the plaintiffs again if there is an appeal, said his team presented evidence that would have supported a much larger award of up to $816 million, but the jury came back with a "very conservative number."

The plaintiffs' counsel reached that figure based on the amount of data Google had allegedly transferred from its users. Using the cost Google charges for data for its own mobile network -- Google Fi -- as a pricing metric the damages were calculated at $10 per gigabyte, Summers explained.

Summers' victorious team included Karma Giulianelli, Hamilton Hill and Lin Brenza of Bartlit Beck, with co-counsel from the Korein Tillery firm, which is headquartered in Missouri and has an office in San Diego.

The plaintiffs' lawyers also called this decision "the tip of the iceberg," as a federal trial against Google with almost identical claims is set to take place in April 2026. That trial could see damages in "orders of magnitude" compared to the Santa Clara County trial if it goes against Google, Summers said.

The federal trial had been held up by a demurrer in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that cellular data should be considered property. The circuit's decision was favorable to Summers' clients, he said.