• by Wendy Davis , December 5, 2025

Google is pressing a federal judge to vacate a jury verdict requiring the company to pay $425 million for allegedly violating mobile users' privacy by gathering analytics information from people who had attempted to block data collection.

In papers filed Thursday with U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco, Google restates its argument that the verdict is invalid because the lawsuit should not have proceeded as a class-action.

Google writes that the privacy claims at issue required proof that the company engaged in "highly offensive" conduct. But, Google argues, deciding whether a privacy violation is "highly offensive" requires a person-by-person analysis. Therefore, those claims should not have proceeded to trial on a classwide basis, and the verdict should now be vacated, Google contends.

"Trial only confirmed that the individualized circumstances of each class member -- e.g., what apps they used, the type of data those apps collected, those apps’ terms of service, and the use of other [software development kits] -- are critical to the analysis," the company argues.

Google's newest papers come in a five-year battle over Google Analytics for Firebase -- a tool that can collect data about people's app usage.

Mobile users including Anibal Rodriguez alleged in a class-action complaint that Google uses its Firebase code to collect some app-related data even when users toggle off a "Web & App Activity" setting.

In September a jury determined after trial that Google was liable for two related privacy claims, and assessed damages at $425 million. Both claims required the jury to find that mobile users had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data, and that Google engaged in highly offensive conduct.

Google recently petitioned Seeborg to cancel that verdict on the grounds that the case shouldn't have been tried as a class-action.

Last month, the plaintiffs countered that class-action status was appropriate because the claims turned on activity that affected all mobile users -- namely, Google's representations to users, and its alleged failure to allow them to opt out of data collection.

But Google says in its new motion that the key issue isn't its disclosures, but whether individual users found the company's actions "highly offensive."

The company adds that the trial testimony proves the legal questions required individualized decisions.

For instance, Google writes, one plaintiff testified at trial that data from some apps -- including NightOwn Companion and Career Karma -- was "private and personal."

But that same plaintiff also said sharing data from the Target app was not "a big deal."

That testimony "confirms ... that Google’s collection in alleged contradiction of its uniform disclosures or representations was not dispositive and, in fact, the nature of an app and the nature of the data collected (all individual inquiries) were," the company argues.

Seeborg hasn't yet indicated when he will rule on the motion.