Judge approves $68 million Google Assistant privacy settlement

The class of Google Assistant users claimed the product recorded private conversations without activation and shared their data with outside platforms.SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge Tuesday granted final approval to a $68 million settlement over claims Google spied on its customers by allowing its Google Assistant product to record conversations even when it’s not activated.The plaintiffs sued Google in 2019, claiming the company’s Google Assistant AI surreptitiously listened to their conversations for the purpose of targeted advertising. Class members claimed Google Assistant — which, when activated with “hot words” like “Hey Google,” records audio and sends it to Google — sometimes sends audio to Google without proper activation, violating their rights under federal and state privacy laws.U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman preliminarily approved the settlement in March, conditionally certifying two settlement classes.The “purchaser” class includes all users who bought a GoogleMade device between the settlement period of May 18, 2016, to March 19, 2026. The “privacy” class includes Google Assistant users and members of their household during the settlement period whose communications were recorded as a result of a “false accept” and disclosed to outside platforms.Under the agreement, Google will pay $68 million to a common fund to be distributed among qualified class members. Purchaser class members can expect an award of $18 to $56 each, while those in the privacy class can expect between $2 and $10 each.Eligible class members can submit a claim online or through the mail and will be required to provide basic contact information, their email address for the Google Account associated with the Google Assistant device their claims are based on and attest they meet the requirements of class membership.Around one-third of the settlement, or $22.6 million, will be allocated to attorneys’ fees, with an additional $1 million for reimbursement of litigation expenses. The court denied plaintiffs’ request for $10,000 service awards for each of the four class representatives, instead awarding each $5,000 for their time and costs related to their representation.In the 31-page order granting final approval of the settlement, Freeman called the $68 million settlement “excellent,” noting the risks for both parties if they chose to continue litigating the case. Freeman also highlighted how none of the funds will revert to Google and any remaining funds after the first round of distribution will be redistributed among class members.“To summarize, both the purchaser class and the privacy class faced significant risk that litigation (and subsequent appeals) would not go their way,” the Barack Obama appointee said. “Under class counsel’s calculations, with respect to the purchaser class, relief was contingent on winning at trial and fending off any post-trial motions and appeals. The $68,000,000 settlement represents approximately 15.15% to 56.67% of the maximum recoverable damages, an exceptional outcome given the risks.”Representatives for both sides did not immediately respond to requests for comment.In 2023, Freeman ruled Google could not force the anonymous class members to arbitrate their cases in separate legal hearings favoring the company. The judge concluded that after four years of litigation that included fact-finding, expert discovery and certifying a class, the plaintiffs had established a waiver of arbitration.The judgeadvanced claims against Google in July 2021, ruling Google Assistant users have a reasonable expectation of privacy that may be violated when conversations when they are near to the Google Assistant are recorded and used for the purpose of targeted advertising.Freeman had expressed skepticism about this part of the case in previous hearings, saying YouTube, which is mentioned in the website’s terms of service, isn’t a third party separate from Google.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads