The Lawyers Who Took Google’s Billing Bonanza
Tom Borman, LawFuel contributing editor
Google has been whacked with a $425 million jury verdict in a class-action privacy trial in a case that centres on the company’s habit of harvesting user data even after people switched off supposedly protective settings. It’s the corporate version of saying “don’t worry, you’re safe” while rifling through your drawers.
But the lawyers who scored big on the win are the Google team who had switched law firms – taking the Google case with them – just a short time before the trial.
The Jury Says No
Almost 100 million users were covered by the claim, which alleged Google continued collecting data even after people turned off the “Web & App Activity” toggle and its obscure little sibling, “Supplemental Web & App Activity.” The jury agreed: Google was not being honest.
The plaintiffs had sought $31 billion and the jury settled on $425 million. While there was a moral victory, the financial deterrent for a behemoth like Google was hardly of major significance.
Cooley’s Sudden Cameo
After steering Google’s defence for five years, Willkie Farr heavyweights Benedict Hur and Simona Agnolucci abruptly defected to Cooley just weeks before trial.
They didn’t come alone—walking out were seven partners (plus associated ranks) from Willkie’s San Francisco outfit, motivated by discomfort over their firm’s cosy deal offering $100 million in pro-bono work to the Trump White House. Cooley, by contrast, had opposed the administration’s overreach.
Silicon Valley’s Privacy Theatre
This verdict is another chapter in Big Tech’s favourite pantomime: the solemn promise of user privacy, followed by systematic data hoarding. From the Incognito-mode settlement to today’s toggle debacle, the script never changes. Only the damages do.
Damage vs Deterrence
For Google, $425 million is a bad lunch tab. Real deterrence would require billions, but the symbolism matters. Other suits are waiting in the wings, and a jury finding that Google flat-out lied about privacy settings could embolden further litigation against the company.
Why It Matters
- Google’s privacy controls don’t do what they say.
- Cooley leveraged a high-profile switch to land centre stage.
- Plaintiffs won, but appeals are inevitable.
- Big Tech litigation remains less about justice and more about momentum, optics and very expensive lawyers.
The Outlook
Google is appealing, naturally. The company insists the jury misunderstood how its tools work. Regulators may eventually stir themselves, but don’t expect urgency on the matter. These things, even when they involve major privacy breaches and megatech companies have a habit of taking their time as they wend through the court system.
