Consumers seek $2.36 billion from Google after privacy verdict

By Mike Scarcella (Reuters) -U.S. Google users who won a $425 million jury verdict in a consumer privacy class action last month have asked a federal judge to force the Alphabet unit to forfeit an additional $2.36 billion in profits. The consumers in a Wednesday court filing called the amount a "conservative approximation" of Google’s allegedly ill-gotten gains after the jury found the company secretly collected app activity data from millions of users who had disabled an account tracking feature. “The jury found that Google’s conduct was highly offensive, harmful, and without consent,” the consumers told Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco, who must decide if disgorgement of profits is allowed and necessary in the case.  GOOGLE HAS DENIED WRONGDOING, SAID IT WILL APPEAL The plaintiffs called the $425 million damages verdict "clearly insufficient to remedy the ongoing and irreparable harm that Google’s conduct continues to inflict." Google and attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Google has denied wrongdoing and said it will appeal. It argued the data it collected was anonymized and that its privacy tools give users control over their data. The 2020 lawsuit alleged Google over an eight-year period accessed users' mobile devices to collect, save and use their data, violating privacy assurances under an account setting called Web & App Activity. The jury found Google liable on two of three privacy claims brought by the plaintiffs, who had sought more than $31 billion in damages at trial. Despite the verdict, Google has not changed its privacy disclosures or data collection practices, the plaintiffs said. Google on Wednesday asked Seeborg to decertify the class of 98 million users and 174 million devices, arguing that the claims depend on individualized factors such as app usage and user expectations. It also urged the judge to vacate the verdict, citing a lack of common issues. (Reporting by Mike Scarcella. Editing by David Bario and Mark Potter)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)