Arizona's $85 Million Settlement With Google Over Hidden Location Tracking
Gallagher & Kennedy's Kevin Neal and Kenneth Ralston served as Arizona's outside counsel and secured an $85 million settlement from Google over the deceptive collection of smartphone users' location data.
What happened
In 2018, the Associated Press reported that Google kept logging where Android and iPhone users traveled even after they switched off the setting labeled "Location History." Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich opened an investigation, and in May 2020 the state sued Google in Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix.
The complaint argued that millions of Arizona smartphone users were misled. People who went into their settings and turned off location tracking still had their movements recorded through a separate control called Web & App Activity. The state said Google buried that fact behind confusing menus and repeated prompts, a design approach the filings called "dark patterns," then turned the collected data into a steady stream of advertising revenue by letting marketers target people based on where they went.
Arizona hired Gallagher & Kennedy as outside counsel. Kevin Neal and Kenneth Ralston led the firm's work, joined by attorneys from Ruttenberg IP Law. Over roughly 20 months of litigation, the team fought off Google's attempts to keep evidence away from a jury and to shrink the scope of the claims. "Over the past 20 months, we beat Google's attempts to prevent the State from presenting critical evidence to a jury," Neal said. A trial was scheduled to begin October 24, 2022.
Weeks before that date, Google agreed to pay Arizona $85 million to resolve the case. Of that total, $77.25 million went into the state's general fund, with the legislature directed to spend it on education, broadband, and internet privacy efforts. The balance covered the state's outside counsel and consumer-protection education programs.
The figure ranked among the larger sums a single state had recovered from Google over its location practices at that point, and the company admitted no wrongdoing as part of the deal. Because the case ended in a settlement before trial, there was no jury verdict to appeal or reduce.
Sources
This account is drawn from contemporaneous public reporting and the court record.