In a significant development in U.S. privacy and consumer-class litigation, Google LLC has agreed to a preliminary $135 million settlement in a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that its Android operating system collected and transferred cellular data from users without their consent, even when users had ostensibly disabled tracking controls on their devices. The agreement, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, awaits judicial approval but signals a noteworthy evolution in how courts and litigants frame emerging privacy claims in the context of digital ecosystems.

The Legal Claims at Issue

The federal case, Taylor v. Google LLC (N.D. Cal.), contends that Google’s Android software surreptitiously transmitted users’ cellular data — which they had purchased from mobile carriers — through background processes for use in advertising and product development, without securing meaningful consent. Plaintiffs cast these alleged transmissions not just as privacy violations but as an “unlawful taking” of property (a common law conversion claim), arguing that cellular data is owned by consumers and that Google’s conduct interfered with those ownership rights.

Critically, the settlement does not represent an admission of wrongdoing by Google. Instead, the company has agreed to resolve the dispute to avoid further litigation costs and uncertainty while maintaining that its practices were consistent with standard industry behaviour.

Key Components of the Settlement

If ultimately approved by the court, the proposed settlement would:

• Establish a $135 million fund to compensate eligible class members, with potential recovery capped at approximately US$100 per individual, although actual amounts may vary.

• Require Google to implement changes designed to increase transparency and user control, including clearer consent mechanisms during Android device setup and more explicit disclosures in Google Play terms of service about data collection practices.

Together, the monetary and structural relief illustrate a hybrid approach that is increasingly common in privacy litigation: combining financial recompense with corporate process changes aimed at mitigating future claims.

Broader Litigation Context

This settlement forms part of a wider array of class actions targeting tech giants over data practices. For example, related privacy suits have alleged that Google continued to collect user data even when consumers disabled tracking settings, culminating in jury verdicts and multi-hundred-million-dollar judgments in other contexts.

Such litigation underscores a broader trend: plaintiffs are refining legal theories beyond statutory privacy statutes (like the U.S. Electronic Communications Privacy Act) toward property-based claims, deceptive practices, and consumer protection causes of action. This diversification of legal strategies creates richer avenues for plaintiffs while posing novel defence challenges.

What Clients (U.S. and International) Should Take Away

For in-house counsel, private companies, and institutional clients with digital products or consumer-facing services, this case highlights several strategic considerations:

• Consent Matters: Clear, affirmative consent is not just a regulatory best practice — it is increasingly central to reducing litigation risk. The absence of explicit and easily accessible consent processes can be leveraged effectively in class actions.

• Data as Property Claims: Traditional privacy claims under statutes or regulations are no longer the only vehicle for redress; courts are receptive to common law property concepts applied to digital data.

• Settlement Dynamics: Even without admissions of liability, significant settlements can reshape industry norms, especially when paired with injunctive or structural reform provisions.

As global regulators and courts — particularly in the UK and EU — continue to confront similar privacy and data-use challenges, U.S. class action developments like this will remain a vital bellwether for risk assessment and compliance strategy. Robust documentation of consent flows, transparent user communications, and proactive risk mitigation measures are becoming indispensable components of dispute avoidance in the digital age.