Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Can google be trusted with privacy?
Executive summary
Google faces both legal losses and ongoing technical-security work that complicate a simple answer to “Can Google be trusted with privacy?” A U.S. jury ordered Google to pay $425 million over a Web & App Activity (WAA) case that found the company misled users about data collection [1] and plaintiffs are seeking as much as $2.36 billion more in profits after the verdict [2]; at the same time Google publicly highlights security patches and product privacy initiatives such as Privacy Sandbox and Activity Controls as evidence of controls and improvements [3] [4] [5].
1. Lawsuits and jury verdicts: concrete legal blows to Google’s privacy credibility
A federal jury found Google liable in a long-running class action for collecting user data despite promises tied to the Web & App Activity setting and ordered $425 million in damages [1] [6]. Legal reporting and law-review analysis trace the case back to a 2020 filing alleging data collected from 98 million users and 174 million devices via third-party apps; academic commentary says courts will scrutinize complex privacy controls more tightly going forward [7]. Plaintiffs are pushing for a much larger disgorgement of profits—$2.36 billion—arguing Google hasn’t changed disclosures or practices despite the verdict [2].
2. Google’s defense and appeals: “We honor user choices,” says the company
Google has publicly denied wrongdoing and signalled appeals in multiple reports, arguing the decision “misunderstands how our products work” and that its privacy tools give people control when they disable personalization [1] [6]. Reuters quotes Google asserting it will seek decertification of the class and vacatur of the verdict on grounds that issues depend on individualized factors [2]. Available sources do not mention the outcome of those appeals beyond the company's intent to challenge the rulings [1] [2].
3. Product-level responses: patches, policies and the Privacy Sandbox pitch
Google continues to issue security updates (for example, November 2025 Pixel and Chrome patches addressing critical vulnerabilities), which the company cites as part of its safety and privacy responsibilities [3] [8]. On policy and product fronts Google emphasizes user-facing controls such as Activity Controls and its Privacy Sandbox work—public materials position these as efforts to give users choice and to develop privacy-enhancing ad tech [4] [5]. Independent reporting, however, documents controversy and skepticism about whether those moves sufficiently protect users and whether Google’s ad business incentives undermine trust—some outlets note retreats or U‑turns around cookie phase-outs and related measures [9].
4. Independent coverage and industry reaction: warnings and mixed signals
Tech and business outlets report sharp reactions: Forbes and others highlighted industry warnings and concerns about Chrome changes and data-hungry new features like Gemini in Chrome, with Apple and Microsoft reportedly cautioning users in some coverage [10]. Media outlets and legal analysts describe both regulatory pressure and ongoing industry debates over balancing ad-supported services with user privacy [11] [10]. These pieces show an ecosystem reacting strongly to the legal findings and product choices, not a unanimous endorsement of Google’s privacy posture [10] [11].
5. What “trust” means in practice: legal, technical and commercial dimensions
Trust here is multi-dimensional: legal accountability (jury verdicts, fines, settlements) shows courts can and do penalize misleading privacy claims [1] [6]; technical hygiene (security patches) addresses vulnerabilities that can expose data but is not the same as policy transparency [3] [8]; and business incentives—especially ad targeting—create inherent tensions between data collection and minimizing tracking [9] [11]. The law-review analysis explicitly warns that companies will face greater scrutiny for opaque control systems rather than being allowed to rely on complexity as a defense [7].
6. Practical takeaways for users and policymakers
For users: the evidence shows legitimate reasons for concern and to exercise caution—review Activity Controls, audit account settings, and follow security-update guidance [4] [3]. For policymakers and advocates: recent verdicts and continuing litigation bolster arguments for clearer, enforceable privacy rules and simpler, verifiable controls rather than layered, opaque settings [7] [2]. Google’s public policy materials claim partnership with regulators and investment in privacy tech, but reporting of legal penalties and community pushback demonstrates that many third parties remain unconvinced [4] [1] [2].
Limitations: reporting in the collected sources documents litigation, company statements, policy documents and security patches but does not offer finalized appellate outcomes or independent audits proving compliance post-verdict; available sources do not mention long-term remedial steps Google may have taken beyond public statements and product updates [1] [3] [4].