California Jury Hits Google with $314M Android Data Verdict

In a landmark verdict, a California state jury ordered Google to pay $314,626,932 to 14 million Android users for allegedly surreptitious data collection and consumption of cellular bandwidth.

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs contended that Google’s Android OS secretly transmitted user data to its servers without providing notice or obtaining consent, even when devices were not connected to Wi-Fi, thus incurring charges on mobile plans. The case, Csupo v. Google, was spearheaded by Bartlit Beck trial lawyers Glen Summers, Karma Giulianelli, Hamilton Hill and Lin Brenza, with Korein Tillery serving as co-counsel.

Historic Ruling Against Google

Jury’s finding that unauthorized use of cellular data amounts to “conversion” breaks new legal ground by extending a theory traditionally applied to tangible property to digital services. Observers believe this interpretation could trigger a wave of class actions targeting covert data practices among major tech firms.

Data-as-Property: Legal Breakthrough

Emerging jurisprudence is increasingly treating personal data as a form of property, granting consumers novel avenues for seeking redress. Regulatory bodies and consumer advocates are likely to scrutinize data handling practices more closely in jurisdictions celebrated for robust privacy rules, such as California.

Tech analysts predict that this decision will inform future regulatory frameworks, including upcoming federal and European laws aimed at treating user data as a tradable asset. Companies may need to overhaul consent mechanisms and background-data settings to avoid similar liability.

Nationwide Trial Looms in 2026

Bartlit Beck LLP and Korein Tillery have announced plans to represent a nationwide class of Android users in a separate federal suit scheduled for April 2026, with projected damages expected to eclipse the current award by an order of magnitude. Google spokesperson José Castaneda has stated that the company intends to appeal the California verdict, arguing that the contested data transfers are essential for device security and incur less bandwidth than commonplace activities, such as photo sharing.