For years, Google has promised privacy while building a business that depends on knowing as much as possible about everyone. The latest court actions and regulatory penalties show a record of tracking people who thought they had opted out, fighting deletion rights, and steering the ad market to its own advantage. The pattern and the words in Google’s own responses reveal something deeper than accidents or misunderstandings. It shows intent. When faced with objections and clear harms, the company keeps collecting, keeps resisting, and keeps winning time in court.
Incognito-mode case: deletion at scale, no checks to users
In April 2024, Google agreed to purge “billions of records” tied to Chrome’s Incognito setting after a class action said it tracked people who believed they were browsing privately. According to court filings, the deal also requires more prominent disclosures and “other controls designed to limit Google’s collection of personal information.” Google insisted, “We are pleased to settle this lawsuit, which we always believed was meritless,” claiming it would “delete old personal technical data that was never associated with an individual.” Plaintiffs’ lawyers called it a major privacy win and valued the relief at $4.75 billion to $7.8 billion based on the commercial value of the data. No money goes to users. The settlement terms underscore a basic truth: Google gathered this material until the risk of a courtroom loss outweighed the benefit of keeping it.
Web & App Activity case: jury says Google invaded privacy
On September 3, 2025, a San Francisco jury found that Google continued to collect data from millions of users who had switched off the Web & App Activity setting. The class covers roughly 98 million users and 174 million devices. The jury awarded $425 million. Google plans to appeal and says the verdict “misunderstands how our products work,” adding, “Our privacy tools give people control over their data, and when they turn off personalization, we honor that choice.” The complaint described years of collection through partnerships with apps such as Uber, Venmo and Instagram, even after users believed they had opted out.
Texas settlement: nearly $1.4 billion over state privacy claims
Earlier in 2025, Google paid nearly $1.4 billion to resolve allegations that it violated Texas privacy laws. The article does not list every practice at issue, but the size of the settlement signals a sweeping challenge to the way Google gathers and uses personal information at scale.
EU adtech fine: conflicts of interest and self-preferencing
On September 5, 2025, the European Commission fined Google €2.95 billion (about $3.45 billion) for “anti-competitive practices in its lucrative adtech business,” finding that Google favored its own display technology “to the detriment of rivals and online publishers” and abused market power “since 2014 until today.” The Commission ordered Google to stop self-preferencing and “take measures to cease its inherent conflicts of interest.” The EU warned, “Google must now come forward with a serious remedy,” and added, “Digital markets exist to serve people and must be grounded in trust and fairness.” Google called the decision “wrong” and vowed to appeal, arguing the required changes will “hurt thousands of European businesses.”
Canada’s right to be forgotten: refusal in the face of proven harm
On August 27, 2025, Canada’s privacy commissioner said Google refused to comply with a decision requiring it to de-list articles about a criminal charge that was dropped. The commissioner found individuals have a right, in “limited circumstances,” to de-listing where there is a “risk of serious harm to an individual,” including harm to “safety or dignity.” In this case, the individual reported social stigma, lost job opportunities and even physical assault. Google said it is “strongly of the view that consideration of a so-called ‘right to be forgotten’ must be appropriately balanced with the freedom of expression and access to information rights,” and argued the courts should define it. The company’s refusal in a case grounded in demonstrated harm shows how far it will go to keep search results intact, even when they damage a person’s life and freedom.
U.S. antitrust ruling: secrecy in court, a remedy that spreads data
A U.S. judge ruled that Google “unlawfully cemented its search dominance through exclusionary deals,” but declined to order a breakup of Chrome or Android. The court barred certain exclusivity and ordered Google to share parts of its “search index and user interaction data with rivals.” As one analysis warned, “The vast majority of users never wanted Google to harvest their search history, click patterns, and personal behaviors in the first place.” Requiring Google to share this trove risks making “your queries, your clicks, your digital fingerprints” portable across the industry. Alphabet’s stock “spiked nearly 8%” after the decision, and CEO Sundar Pichai “thanked President Donald Trump for bringing closure to the case.” That reaction, combined with light remedies, reads less like accountability and more like validation that the surveillance engine will continue.
What the record says about intent
Across these matters, Google says it honors user choices, the data is nonpersonal, or the cases are meritless. Yet juries, regulators and commissioners keep finding the opposite. The company fought the Incognito case until confronted with a looming trial, then agreed to delete records at unprecedented scale. A jury found it collected data after users turned off a setting meant to stop it. In Europe, regulators found conflicts of interest that advantaged Google’s ad stack “since 2014.” In Canada, the company refused a targeted de-listing even where the person faced stigma, lost work and physical assault. This is not a string of isolated errors. It is a long running strategy that treats objection as a hurdle, not a limit. The human cost is not abstract. When people cannot stop tracking or remove harmful results tied to their names, their safety, dignity, opportunities and freedom suffer.
Case-by-case summaries with fines and remedies
- Chrome Incognito tracking
Allegation: Tracking people who believed Incognito prevented it.
Result: Settlement requiring deletion of “billions of records,” stronger disclosures, and new limits. No direct payments to users; plaintiffs’ lawyers valued relief at $4.75–$7.8 billion. - Web & App Activity tracking after opt-out
Allegation: Continuing to collect, save and use data after users switched off the setting, including via third-party app integrations.
Result: Jury verdict of $425 million; Google will appeal and says the verdict misunderstands its tools. - Texas state-law privacy violations
Allegation: Violations of state privacy laws tied to data practices.
Result: Nearly $1.4 billion settlement in 2025. - EU adtech self-preferencing and conflicts
Allegation: Favoring Google’s own display ad services and abusing market power since 2014 to the detriment of rivals and publishers.
Result: €2.95 billion fine; orders to end self-preferencing and resolve conflicts. Google will appeal. - Canada right-to-be-forgotten refusal
Allegation: Refusing to de-list articles about a dropped charge despite a finding of serious harm.
Result: No fine stated; the commissioner is weighing options to force compliance. - U.S. search antitrust remedy with privacy risk
Allegation: Unlawfully maintaining search dominance through exclusionary deals.
Result: No breakup; limits on exclusivity and a mandate to share parts of the search index and interaction data with rivals, which critics say multiplies privacy exposure.
Breaches of privacy and what each means
- Tracking in “private” contexts
Google collected data on people using Chrome’s Incognito mode. The remedy forces mass deletion and better disclosures, proving it kept records many users never expected to exist. - Tracking after explicit opt-out
A jury concluded Google kept gathering data after users turned off Web & App Activity. The verdict shows opt-out was not honored in practice for millions of people. - Conflicted adtech stack
EU regulators found Google shaped the ad market in ways that advantaged itself and harmed competitors and publishers, reinforcing incentives to harvest user data across the stack. - Denial of targeted deletion rights
Google refused a Canadian de-listing even where the commissioner found a serious risk to “safety or dignity,” and the person reported stigma, lost jobs and physical assault. - Court-ordered data portability that widens risk
The antitrust remedy requires sharing search index and interaction data. Critics warn this spreads sensitive behavioral data to more firms, magnifying surveillance rather than reducing it. - State-level privacy violations at massive scale
The Texas settlement total shows how far Google’s data practices reached under state law. Big numbers do not erase the years of collection that caused the harm.
Google’s courtroom language frames these disputes as misunderstandings or meritless claims. The facts in the orders, verdicts and decisions tell a different story. When the company faces objections or evidence of harm, it delays, appeals, deletes only what it must, and resumes collecting under new terms. That is intent. The fines and remedies we can see are only the visible tip. The larger structure is a system designed to watch, remember and profit, even when it costs people their dignity, their opportunities and their freedom.
