Google agrees to $1.375 billion Texas settlement over privacy violations, marking largest state-level data case win

By willowt // 2025-05-13

Mastodon

Parler

Gab

Copy

Google agreed to pay $1.375 billion—the largest U.S. state privacy settlement—to resolve lawsuits accusing it of deceptive data practices, including tracking geolocation, biometrics and Incognito mode activity without proper consent.
Google allegedly misled users by tracking location data even when settings were disabled; collecting voiceprints and facial geometry (e.g., via Google Photos) without explicit consent; and retaining search/location data in "Incognito mode" despite marketing it as private.
While a financial win for Texas, critics argue the settlement lacks enforceable reforms. Google claims it has already updated policies, but privacy advocates warn fines alone won’t stop systemic abuses.
The case reflects conservative-led state efforts (e.g., Texas’ 2023 Data Privacy Act) to challenge Big Tech’s power, framing privacy as a bipartisan issue of individual rights vs. corporate overreach.
The settlement signals states’ growing role in holding tech giants accountable, but without federal legislation, gaps in user protection remain. Critics question whether monetary penalties deter repeat violations.

In a landmark legal victory, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced on May 9, that Google has agreed to pay $1.375 billion to settle multiple lawsuits alleging systematic violations of data privacy rights through deceptive tracking of geolocation, biometric data and incognito searches. The settlement—the largest ever attained by a U.S. state against a tech giant for privacy-related claims—follows years of litigation targeting Google’s practices, which Paxton called a “clear abuse of Texans’ trust.” The lawsuit, first filed in 2022, accuses Google of misleading users about their ability to control their data, including tracking location data even when settings indicated otherwise and harvesting voiceprints and facial geometry through services like Google Photos without proper consent. Paxton’s office also alleged that Google’s “Incognito mode,” marketed as a privacy tool, allowed the company to retain search histories and location data. Google denies wrongdoing, stating the settlement addresses outdated policies already revised. This case underscores a growing wave of state-level legal actions challenging tech giants’ handling of consumer data, with Texas leading efforts to hold Big Tech accountable.

The allegations: How Google’s tactics violated privacy laws

According to the lawsuits, Google’s practices violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) by deceiving users about their data’s security. Key claims included: Geolocation tracking: Despite users disabling Location History in Google accounts, the company continued storing and utilizing location data, often routing sensitive information through “My Activity” without transparency. Biometric data misuse: Google unlawfully collected voiceprints and facial reconstructions from services like Google Photos and Google Assistant. For instance, the company allegedly used users’ faces and voices for template creation without explicit consent, violating privacy norms. Incognito mode misleading label: Google promoted “Incognito mode” as a private browsing option that blocked search and location tracking, but Paxton’s office asserts it still gathered data for targeted advertising and shared it with third parties. The lawsuits alleged Google’s actions were part of a broader strategy to “game” user decisions, using buried settings or technical jargon to obscure true data practices.

A “record” settlement, but does it fix the problem?

The $1.375 billion agreement eclipses prior state−level privacy settlements, including a $391 million collective payout from a 40-state coalition and a $93 million California settlement in 2023. Over the past three years, Google has faced similar litigation for antitrust issues and data practices in Italy, India and the U.S., paying over $2 billion total in fines and settlements. However, critics argue the deal is less about reform and more about economics. Google’s spokesperson, José Castañeda, emphasized the company “has already changed policies” and “no new product controls will be required.” Privacy advocates—including many in the conservative think tank community—contend this leaves unresolved practices open to abuse, as financial penalties alone may not curb systemic deception. “The real issue isn’t just punitive damages but ensuring regulators enforce compliance,” said tech ethicist Devin Hartman of the Privacy First Initiative. “Texas secured money, but if Google’s tools still lack transparency, the breach of trust remains.” Google’s prior actions support this critique: it has faced repeat litigation despite claims of policy updates, leading some to question whether corporate self-policing suffices.

Geopolitical context: Privacy as a conservative cause

The case aligns with broader conservative critiques of Big Tech’s unchecked power, framing privacy protection as a defense of individual autonomy against corporate overreach. In recent years, states like Texas, Florida, Arizona and Louisiana have led the charge on data privacy laws, often with bipartisan support. Texas’ 2023 passage of the Data Privacy Act (SB 10)—allowing residents to sue for data breaches—set an aggressive precedent for holding tech firms accountable. Paxton has leaned into this platform, using settlements like the $1.4 billion Meta case (2024) and this Google deal to reinforce his role as a “Big Tech watchdog.” “The Founders feared concentrations of power,” said presidential candidate and privacy advocate Liz Cheney during a 2024 campaign speech. “Letting a few firms control our digital lives threatens freedom far worse than taxation without representation.”

Is this a watershed moment?

The Google payout marks a significant milestone, signaling to tech giants that states can challenge their practices outside federal channels. Still, the resolution raises tough questions about enforcement. Paxton called the settlement “a major win for Texans,” asserting it proves “Big Tech isn’t above the law.” Yet as critics note, the deal’s lack of operational reforms means Google’s users nationwide remain at risk unless other states or Congress enacts binding reforms. For now, the case will fuel debates over whether financial penalties or legislative action is the best path to ensure privacy. With Google’s global revenue nearing $500 billion, $1.375 billion may be little more than a speed bump—but the message to Big Tech from red states is clear: ignore privacy norms at your peril. As the settlement pivots to final approval, the Biden administration’s FTC sits in silent limbo, still uncommitted to federal data privacy legislation. For now, states such as Texas are wearing the mantle of digital liberty’s first responders. Sources for this article include: TheEpochTimes.com TexasAttorneyGeneral.gov IDTechWire.com BitDefender.com