The post Google denies wrongdoing in latest $135M settlement over cellular data appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Google is set to pay $135 million to millionsThe post Google denies wrongdoing in latest $135M settlement over cellular data appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Google is set to pay $135 million to millions

Google denies wrongdoing in latest $135M settlement over cellular data

Google is set to pay $135 million to millions of Android smartphone users in settlement fees for a privacy lawsuit despite its denial of their allegations. 

Google has agreed to settle one of its many active lawsuits with a $135 million payment rather than risk being charged more in a formal trial where Android users claimed that it used cellular data without their permission, even when phones were idle or settings were turned off.

Why was Google accused of taking users’ data?

Google has reached a preliminary $135 million settlement to resolve a class-action lawsuit involving millions of Android smartphone users. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Jose, California, accused the company of programming its mobile operating system to collect and transmit cellular data without user consent. 

Despite agreeing to the payout, Google continues to deny any wrongdoing. People who have used Android devices since November 12, 2017, can receive payments capped at $100 each.

According to the legal filings, users argued that Google “needlessly” collected cellular data that they had purchased from their mobile carriers. Lawyers were able to argue that cellular data is also property because users pay monthly fees to carriers for a specific amount of data (like 10GB or 20GB).

Plaintiffs provided evidence showing that Android devices were sending small “pings” of information to Google throughout the day. This data collection allegedly happened even when users closed Google’s apps, disabled their location-sharing features, or had their screens locked. 

The plaintiffs claimed the unauthorized data was used to support Google’s product development and to help its targeted advertising campaigns. 

The agreement also forces Google to obtain clear consent from users to transfer data when they first set up their phones. Google is also required to make it easier for people to stop these transfers by using a toggle in the settings menu. 

Additionally, Google will be more transparent by disclosing these data transfers in the Google Play terms of service.

Experts for the plaintiffs estimated that these background transfers could total between 1 and 1.5 megabytes per day per device. While that sounds small, when multiplied across millions of devices over several years, the total value of the “stolen” data became very large.

A California state court jury awarded plaintiffs in a similar case $314 million back in 2025 when Google was found liable for using data without proper consent. By settling this federal case for $135 million now, Google is avoiding the risk of a much larger verdict at a trial that was scheduled to begin in August 2026.

On January 26, Google agreed to pay $68 million to settle a different privacy lawsuit that claimed the Google Assistant “spied” on people by recording private conversations when it was triggered by mistake. Users, in that case, said they received targeted ads based on things they said in their own homes when they didn’t even mean to talk to their phones.

Just one day later, on January 27, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton finalized a massive $1.375 billion settlement with Google that ended two separate lawsuits in Texas regarding the company’s use of location data, biometric information, and its “Incognito” mode in the Chrome browser. 

Google is also currently on trial in Los Angeles for making its product, YouTube, addictive to children. Meta’s Instagram is also accused. Jury selection for the case began on January 27. The trial will look at internal documents to see if the companies ignored safety concerns to increase profits. 

Meanwhile, in Northern California, a federal judge recently ruled that a major antitrust lawsuit against Google, claiming that the company used illegal deals to make sure its search engine stayed the default on almost every smartphone and web browser, preventing smaller competitors from growing, can move forward.

The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

Source: https://www.cryptopolitan.com/google-135m-settlement-over-cellular-data/

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Tags:

You May Also Like

HitPaw API is Integrated by Comfy for Professional Image and Video Enhancement to Global Creators

HitPaw API is Integrated by Comfy for Professional Image and Video Enhancement to Global Creators

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 7, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — HitPaw, a leader in AI-powered visual enhancement solutions, announced Comfy, a global content creation platform, is
Share
AI Journal2026/02/08 09:15
Journalist gives brutal review of Melania movie: 'Not a single person in the theater'

Journalist gives brutal review of Melania movie: 'Not a single person in the theater'

A Journalist gave a brutal review of the new Melania documentary, which has been criticized by those who say it won't make back the huge fees spent to make it,
Share
Rawstory2026/02/08 09:08
Facts Vs. Hype: Analyst Examines XRP Supply Shock Theory

Facts Vs. Hype: Analyst Examines XRP Supply Shock Theory

Prominent analyst Cheeky Crypto (203,000 followers on YouTube) set out to verify a fast-spreading claim that XRP’s circulating supply could “vanish overnight,” and his conclusion is more nuanced than the headline suggests: nothing in the ledger disappears, but the amount of XRP that is truly liquid could be far smaller than most dashboards imply—small enough, in his view, to set the stage for an abrupt liquidity squeeze if demand spikes. XRP Supply Shock? The video opens with the host acknowledging his own skepticism—“I woke up to a rumor that XRP supply could vanish overnight. Sounds crazy, right?”—before committing to test the thesis rather than dismiss it. He frames the exercise as an attempt to reconcile a long-standing critique (“XRP’s supply is too large for high prices”) with a rival view taking hold among prominent community voices: that much of the supply counted as “circulating” is effectively unavailable to trade. His first step is a straightforward data check. Pulling public figures, he finds CoinMarketCap showing roughly 59.6 billion XRP as circulating, while XRPScan reports about 64.7 billion. The divergence prompts what becomes the video’s key methodological point: different sources count “circulating” differently. Related Reading: Analyst Sounds Major XRP Warning: Last Chance To Get In As Accumulation Balloons As he explains it, the higher on-ledger number likely includes balances that aggregators exclude or treat as restricted, most notably Ripple’s programmatic escrow. He highlights that Ripple still “holds a chunk of XRP in escrow, about 35.3 billion XRP locked up across multiple wallets, with a nominal schedule of up to 1 billion released per month and unused portions commonly re-escrowed. Those coins exist and are accounted for on-ledger, but “they aren’t actually sitting on exchanges” and are not immediately available to buyers. In his words, “for all intents and purposes, that escrow stash is effectively off of the market.” From there, the analysis moves from headline “circulating supply” to the subtler concept of effective float. Beyond escrow, he argues that large strategic holders—banks, fintechs, or other whales—may sit on material balances without supplying order books. When you strip out escrow and these non-selling stashes, he says, “the effective circulating supply… is actually way smaller than the 59 or even 64 billion figure.” He cites community estimates in the “20 or 30 billion” range for what might be truly liquid at any given moment, while emphasizing that nobody has a precise number. That effective-float framing underpins the crux of his thesis: a potential supply shock if demand accelerates faster than fresh sell-side supply appears. “Price is a dance between supply and demand,” he says; if institutional or sovereign-scale users suddenly need XRP and “the market finds that there isn’t enough XRP readily available,” order books could thin out and prices could “shoot on up, sometimes violently.” His phrase “circulating supply could collapse overnight” is presented not as a claim that tokens are destroyed or removed from the ledger, but as a market-structure scenario in which available inventory to sell dries up quickly because holders won’t part with it. How Could The XRP Supply Shock Happen? On the demand side, he anchors the hypothetical to tokenization. He points to the “very early stages of something huge in finance”—on-chain tokenization of debt, stablecoins, CBDCs and even gold—and argues the XRP Ledger aims to be “the settlement layer” for those assets.He references Ripple CTO David Schwartz’s earlier comments about an XRPL pivot toward tokenized assets and notes that an institutional research shop (Bitwise) has framed XRP as a way to play the tokenization theme. In his construction, if “trillions of dollars in value” begin settling across XRPL rails, working inventories of XRP for bridging, liquidity and settlement could rise sharply, tightening effective float. Related Reading: XRP Bearish Signal: Whales Offload $486 Million In Asset To illustrate, he offers two analogies. First, the “concert tickets” model: you think there are 100,000 tickets (100B supply), but 50,000 are held by the promoter (escrow) and 30,000 by corporate buyers (whales), leaving only 20,000 for the public; if a million people want in, prices explode. Second, a comparison to Bitcoin’s halving: while XRP has no programmatic halving, he proposes that a sudden adoption wave could function like a de facto halving of available supply—“XRP’s version of a halving could actually be the adoption event.” He also updates the narrative context that long dogged XRP. Once derided for “too much supply,” he argues the script has “totally flipped.” He cites the current cycle’s optics—“XRP is sitting above $3 with a market cap north of around $180 billion”—as evidence that raw supply counts did not cap price as tightly as critics claimed, and as a backdrop for why a scarcity narrative is gaining traction. Still, he declines to publish targets or timelines, repeatedly stressing uncertainty and risk. “I’m not a financial adviser… cryptocurrencies are highly volatile,” he reminds viewers, adding that tokenization could take off “on some other platform,” unfold more slowly than enthusiasts expect, or fail to get to “sudden shock” scale. The verdict he offers is deliberately bound. The theory that “XRP supply could vanish overnight” is imprecise on its face; the ledger will not erase coins. But after examining dashboard methodologies, escrow mechanics and the behavior of large holders, he concludes that the effective float could be meaningfully smaller than headline supply figures, and that a fast-developing tokenization use case could, under the right conditions, stress that float. “Overnight is a dramatic way to put it,” he concedes. “The change could actually be very sudden when it comes.” At press time, XRP traded at $3.0198. Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com
Share
NewsBTC2025/09/18 11:00