Texas secures $1.375 billion from Google in privacy settlement

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton finalized a settlement agreement with Google on October 31, 2025, marking the conclusion of litigation that began with a lawsuit filed on January 24, 2022. The settlement addresses allegations that Google unlawfully tracked users' locations, monitored incognito browsing activity, and collected biometric data without proper consent.

The final agreement represents the highest recovery obtained by any state attorney general for privacy law enforcement against Google. Previous single-state settlements reached only $93 million. A forty-state coalition secured $391 million for similar violations—almost one billion dollars less than Texas achieved independently.

Litigation trajectory

The case originated when Paxton filed his third lawsuit against Google, alleging systematic violations of Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The initial complaint focused on location tracking that continued even after users disabled the "Location History" feature. Google's settings told users that turning off Location History meant "the places you go are no longer stored," yet the company continued tracking through undisclosed methods.

On May 19, 2022, Paxton amended the lawsuit to include allegations regarding Google's Incognito mode. The amendment argued that Google's representations about private browsing were misleading. While Incognito mode suggested that search history and location activity would not be recorded, Google continued collecting and monetizing this information for advertising purposes.

The lawsuit documented how Google continued using private location data to generate profits. Texas consumers operated under the impression that disabling tracking features would stop data collection. Google maintained multiple tracking systems that operated independently from user privacy controls.

Technical methods at issue

The litigation revealed Google's use of various settings and methods for data collection beyond what the company adequately disclosed. Google provides a "Location History" setting that appears to offer comprehensive privacy control. Court documents showed the company tracked users through alternative mechanisms that circumvented these apparent protections.

The Incognito mode claims centered on what Texas characterized as deceptive practices. Google's private browsing function implied comprehensive privacy protection. Evidence presented during litigation indicated the company tracked user activity even when individuals explicitly attempted to prevent such monitoring.

According to the amended complaint filed in May 2022, Google's practices constituted violations regardless of user settings. "Google claims to give users control and to respect their choice but in reality, regardless of the settings users select, the Big Tech giant is still hard at work collecting and monetizing the location and other personal information that users seek to keep private," according to the May 2022 press release.

Settlement terms and broader context

The settlement announced in principle on May 9, 2025, became finalized when Google signed the agreement on October 31, 2025. The $1.375 billion figure covers combined claims related to geolocation tracking, incognito browsing activity, and biometric identifiers.

Norton Rose Fulbright served as outside counsel to the Texas Attorney General's office throughout the litigation. The settlement marks the fifth lawsuit Paxton filed against Google, forming part of what Texas described as the nation's largest data privacy and security initiative by any state.

The settlement follows previous enforcement actions where courts found technology companies liable for privacy violations. A federal jury in San Francisco delivered a $425.7 million verdict against Google on September 3, 2025, in a separate case involving Firebase SDK data collection that continued after users disabled tracking.

Google also reached a settlement valued between $1.4 billion and $21.6 billion in the real-time bidding privacy litigation filed in the Northern District of California. That settlement introduced new controls allowing users to limit personal information shared during advertising auctions.

Implications for marketing technology

The settlement occurs as Google faces multiple antitrust proceedings addressing its market dominance. Federal courts found Google liable for monopolizing search services and digital advertising technology markets. These parallel enforcement actions create uncertainty for marketing professionals who depend on Google's advertising infrastructure.

Privacy enforcement actions against major technology platforms have accelerated. The Texas settlement demonstrates that individual states can achieve substantial recoveries through aggressive litigation strategies. This approach contrasts with multistate coalitions that typically settle for smaller amounts distributed across participating jurisdictions.

Paxton previously secured a $1.4 billion settlement with Meta for unlawfully collecting facial recognition data. That recovery, announced in July 2025, represented the largest settlement obtained from an action brought by a single state. Combined with settlements of $700 million and $8 million against Google for anticompetitive and deceptive trade practices, Texas has recovered over $3.5 billion from technology companies.

The advertising industry operates in an environment where data collection practices face increasing scrutiny. Oracle settled a class action lawsuit for $115 million over allegations the company created unauthorized digital dossiers on consumers. That case, like the Texas litigation against Google, centered on data collection without proper consent.

Privacy controls and user expectations

The litigation highlighted disconnects between user expectations and actual data collection practices. Google's interface suggested that privacy controls functioned comprehensively. Technical implementation revealed that multiple data collection systems operated independently from user-facing settings.

Location tracking represented a central focus of the original complaint filed in January 2022. Google's "Location History" setting appeared to provide definitive control over location data collection. The lawsuit alleged that Google tracked users through methods including Wi-Fi networks, Bluetooth connections, and application usage patterns that continued functioning regardless of Location History status.

The Incognito mode allegations added in May 2022 addressed similar concerns about misleading privacy representations. Private browsing modes in web browsers typically prevent local storage of browsing history. The lawsuit argued that Google's implementation failed to prevent the company from collecting and using this data for advertising purposes.

According to the January 2022 press release, "Google provides a setting called 'Location History' and tells users that, if they turn it off, 'the places you go are no longer stored.' In spite of this assurance, Google continues to track users' location through other settings and methods that it fails to adequately disclose."

Financial scale comparison

The $1.375 billion settlement significantly exceeds amounts other states obtained for similar claims. No state achieved a settlement against Google for comparable data privacy violations greater than $93 million. The forty-state coalition settlement of $391 million distributed funds across participating jurisdictions, resulting in substantially smaller per-state recoveries.

Texas's independent litigation strategy allowed the state to avoid splitting settlement proceeds. The approach required greater resource investment but yielded returns that justified the strategy. Paxton characterized the settlement as establishing accountability for technology companies that misuse consumer data.

The settlement amount reflects both the scope of alleged violations and Google's interest in resolving litigation. The case involved years of discovery and aggressive prosecution. Settlement negotiations preceded final agreement by several months, with the settlement in principle announced in May 2025 and finalization occurring in October 2025.

Enforcement strategy implications

Texas's success demonstrates a model for state-level technology enforcement. Rather than joining multistate coalitions, Texas pursued independent litigation across multiple fronts. This strategy yielded substantially larger recoveries than coordinated actions while maintaining state control over settlement terms.

Paxton described the enforcement approach as establishing boundaries for technology company behavior. "This historic $1.375 billion price tag for Google's misconduct sends a clear warning to all of Big Tech that I will take aggressive action against any company that misuses Texans' data and violates their privacy," according to the October 31, 2025 press release.

The settlement builds on Texas's broader technology enforcement initiative. Paxton characterized the effort as "founding the largest data privacy and security initiative of any state." This framework enabled multiple simultaneous enforcement actions against different technology companies for varying privacy violations.

The approach contrasts with federal enforcement, which faces different procedural requirements and political constraints. State attorneys general can pursue cases under state consumer protection statutes that provide different legal theories than federal law. Texas utilized its Deceptive Trade Practices Act as the statutory basis for claims against Google.

Advertising ecosystem considerations

The settlement arrives as the digital advertising industry confronts fundamental structural challenges. Federal courts ordered remedies in antitrust cases that may require Google to divest key advertising technology assets. Privacy enforcement adds another dimension to regulatory pressure facing the company.

Google's advertising business depends on data collection that enables targeted advertising. Privacy restrictions limit the data available for targeting purposes, potentially affecting advertising effectiveness. The company faces tension between providing privacy controls and maintaining advertising revenue.

Marketing professionals operate in an environment where data practices face scrutiny from multiple directions. Privacy litigation, regulatory enforcement, and antitrust proceedings all address different aspects of technology platforms' market power. The convergence creates uncertainty about future advertising capabilities.

The Texas settlement specifically addressed location tracking and browsing activity—data types that support advertising targeting. Restrictions on collecting this information affect advertisers' ability to reach specific audiences. The advertising industry must adapt strategies to function within evolving privacy constraints.

Technical implementation questions

The settlement agreement details remain confidential. Typical privacy settlements include requirements for modified data collection practices, enhanced user disclosures, and monitoring mechanisms. The finalized agreement likely specifies technical changes Google must implement to resolve the claims.

Previous privacy settlements established precedents for remedial measures. Companies typically commit to clearer privacy disclosures, simplified user controls, and limitations on certain data collection practices. Settlements often include monitoring periods during which outside parties verify compliance with agreed terms.

The litigation revealed that Google operated multiple data collection systems that functioned independently. Remedial measures would need to address these interconnected systems to prevent circumvention of privacy controls. Technical implementation of settlement terms requires coordination across Google's various products and services.

Norton Rose Fulbright's role as outside counsel suggests sophisticated technical and legal analysis supported Texas's litigation. The firm's involvement indicates the case required specialized expertise in technology law, data protection, and complex litigation management.

Historical context

The settlement represents the latest development in ongoing tensions between technology platforms and government regulators. Google has faced privacy enforcement actions in multiple jurisdictions for similar practices. The company previously settled location tracking claims with other states for substantially smaller amounts.

The broader context includes multiple legal challenges facing major technology companies. Publishers filed antitrust lawsuits alleging Google leverages search monopoly power to coerce content provision for artificial intelligence systems. Federal courts found Google liable for monopolizing advertising technology markets.

Privacy enforcement complements antitrust actions by addressing different aspects of market power. While antitrust cases focus on competitive harm, privacy enforcement addresses consumer protection. The combination creates comprehensive regulatory pressure on technology platforms.

Texas's aggressive enforcement posture positions the state as a leader in technology regulation. The substantial recoveries achieved through independent litigation provide financial resources and political benefits. Other states may adopt similar strategies based on Texas's demonstrated success.

Market position and future outlook

Google maintains dominant positions in search, advertising, and various technology markets despite regulatory challenges. The company's financial resources allow it to settle cases while continuing operations. Privacy settlements, even at $1.375 billion, represent manageable costs relative to Google's revenue.

The settlement finalization on October 31, 2025, brings resolution to litigation that spanned nearly four years. Google can implement agreed changes and move forward without ongoing litigation uncertainty in Texas. The company faces continued challenges in other jurisdictions pursuing similar claims.

Marketing professionals must monitor how privacy enforcement affects advertising capabilities. Google's modifications to address settlement terms may change data availability or targeting options. The industry must adapt strategies to maintain effectiveness within evolving privacy frameworks.

The settlement establishes precedent for valuing privacy violations. The $1.375 billion figure provides a reference point for future enforcement actions. Other states may pursue similar litigation seeking comparable recoveries based on Texas's success.

Paxton's October 31 statement emphasized accountability: "If Big Tech thinks they can get away with abusing user data and illegally spying on Texans without consequences, I will make sure they are proven wrong. This monumental settlement is a testament to my office's commitment to taking on the biggest companies in the world and securing victory on behalf of Texans."

The finalized agreement concludes two of the largest data privacy enforcement actions ever brought by a single state against Google. The combined settlement addresses geolocation tracking, incognito browsing activity, and biometric data collection—three distinct but related privacy concerns that formed the basis of Texas's litigation strategy.

Timeline

• January 24, 2022: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed third lawsuit against Google alleging deceptive location tracking practices
• May 19, 2022: Paxton amended lawsuit to include Incognito mode allegations as fifth lawsuit against Google
• May 9, 2025: Paxton announced $1.375 billion settlement in principle with Google
• July 2025: Paxton secured $1.4 billion settlement with Meta for facial recognition violations
• September 3, 2025: Federal jury delivered $425.7 million verdict against Google in separate Firebase SDK privacy case
• October 31, 2025: Google signed final settlement agreement with Texas

Summary

Who: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Google LLC entered into a settlement agreement, with Norton Rose Fulbright serving as outside counsel to Texas. The agreement affects Texas consumers whose data Google allegedly collected without proper consent.

What: A $1.375 billion settlement resolving allegations that Google unlawfully tracked users' locations, monitored incognito browsing activity, and collected biometric data in violation of Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The settlement represents the largest recovery by any single state for privacy law enforcement against Google.

When: Google signed the final settlement agreement on October 31, 2025, concluding litigation that began with a lawsuit filed on January 24, 2022, and was amended on May 19, 2022. The settlement in principle was announced on May 9, 2025.

Where: The litigation occurred in Texas state court, with the settlement applying specifically to violations affecting Texas residents. The settlement represents independent action by Texas rather than participation in multistate coalitions.

Why: The lawsuit alleged Google systematically misled consumers about privacy controls while continuing to collect location data, incognito browsing activity, and biometric information for advertising purposes. Google's practices allegedly violated Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act by deceiving consumers about the effectiveness of privacy settings and the extent of data collection. The settlement aims to hold technology companies accountable for privacy violations and establish deterrent effects for similar practices.