Google is fighting on more legal fronts than at any point in its history. As of mid-2026, the latest Google lawsuit news includes two federal antitrust losses (one in search, one in advertising technology), a $425 million jury verdict in a privacy class action, hundreds of millions more in privacy settlements moving toward final approval, a resolved Play Store case with Epic Games, and nearly €3 billion in fresh European Union fines. Here is where each major case stands.
The Search Antitrust Case
The biggest case against Google is United States v. Google LLC, filed by the Department of Justice and eleven state attorneys general in October 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. After a nine-week bench trial, Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled in August 2024 that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining an illegal monopoly in general search and search text advertising.1Harvard Law Review. United States v. Google LLC
At the heart of the case were the payments Google made to Apple, Samsung, Mozilla, and others to be set as the default search engine on their phones and browsers. Judge Mehta found those deals foreclosed roughly 50 percent of the search market by query volume and 45 percent of the search text advertising market, cutting off rivals like Bing and DuckDuckGo from the user data they needed to catch up.1Harvard Law Review. United States v. Google LLC
The Remedy: Behavioral Rules, Not a Breakup
The DOJ and a coalition of 38 state attorneys general asked the court to force Google to sell its Chrome browser and potentially Android. Judge Mehta refused. In a September 2, 2025 order, he called a Chrome divestiture “incredibly messy and highly risky” and found that Google’s dominance was not tightly enough linked to its illegal conduct to justify breaking the company apart.2NPR. Google Chrome DOJ Antitrust Ruling
The court instead imposed behavioral remedies for six years. Google is barred from entering or maintaining exclusive default-search agreements, though it can still pay for non-exclusive preloading. It must share portions of its search index and user-interaction data with competitors, offer search and ad syndication to rivals, and publicly disclose material changes to its ad auctions. A technical committee will oversee compliance.3U.S. Department of Justice. Department of Justice Wins Significant Remedies Against Google2NPR. Google Chrome DOJ Antitrust Ruling
Both Sides Are Appealing
Neither side accepted the outcome. In February 2026, the DOJ and state attorneys general appealed, arguing the remedies were too weak and the court should have ordered a Chrome divestiture.4Bloomberg. Google Search Remedy to Be Appealed by State Attorneys General On May 22, 2026, Google filed its own appeal with the D.C. Circuit, arguing Judge Mehta misapplied antitrust law on the default deals and overstepped by ordering data sharing.5The New York Times. Google Appeals Search Case Resolution is likely years away.
The Ad Tech Antitrust Case
A second federal case targeted Google’s dominance over the plumbing of online advertising. Filed by the DOJ and 17 state attorneys general in January 2023 in the Eastern District of Virginia, it alleged that Google spent 15 years acquiring and monopolizing the tools publishers use to sell ad space and the exchange that connects buyers and sellers.6New York Attorney General. Attorney General James Wins Case Against Google for Monopolies in Digital Advertising
On April 17, 2025, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema ruled that Google had illegally monopolized the publisher ad server market and the ad exchange market, and that it engaged in unlawful tying by forcing publishers to use its DoubleClick for Publishers ad server to reach its AdX exchange.7U.S. Department of Justice. Department of Justice Prevails in Landmark Antitrust Case Against Google Google won on one point: the court found the government had not shown the advertiser-side ad network was a distinct antitrust market.8New York Attorney General (Court Filing). United States v. Google LLC, Memorandum Opinion
The DOJ has asked Judge Brinkema to order Google to sell its AdX exchange and possibly its ad server, open-source its ad auction algorithm, and submit to ten years of oversight.9Public Knowledge. How DOJ’s Proposed Ad Tech Remedies Could Do What the Court Would Not in Online Search Google has proposed narrower changes to its publisher contracts and interoperability with rival ad servers.10Digiday. Google’s Ad Tech Antitrust Remedy Phase Explained An 11-day remedies trial ended with closing arguments on November 21, 2025, and Judge Brinkema told the parties she still needed to decide whether to order a structural breakup.11Norton Rose Fulbright. What You Need to Know From Closing Arguments in US v. Google As of mid-2026 that ruling has not landed. Google has said it will appeal the liability finding once the remedies order issues.
Epic Games and the Play Store
Google’s Android app store practices ended in a loss the company could not undo. A 2023 jury verdict in Epic Games v. Google found Google had monopolized Android app distribution and in-app billing. Judge James Donato issued an injunction requiring Google to open the Play Store to competing app stores and allow alternative in-app payments, on a three-year compliance schedule.12SCOTUSblog. Justices Side Against Google
A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the verdict and injunction in August 2025.13Reuters. Google Loses US Appeal Over App Store Reforms, Epic Games Case The Supreme Court declined to block the injunction in October 2025. Independent-payment changes took effect in late 2025, and the broader requirement to allow competing app stores was set for July 2026.12SCOTUSblog. Justices Side Against Google The parties then settled. On March 5, 2026 they jointly moved to dismiss Google’s cert petition, and the Court dismissed it on March 9, 2026.14U.S. Supreme Court. Google LLC v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 25-521
Privacy Verdicts and Class Action Settlements
Separate from the antitrust fights, Google has taken serious hits in privacy litigation.
Rodriguez v. Google: $425 Million Jury Verdict
Plaintiffs in Rodriguez v. Google LLC alleged that Google collected data from users’ activity on non-Google apps like Uber, Venmo, and Instagram through embedded code, even after users switched off “Web & App Activity” tracking.15Google Web App Activity Lawsuit. Rodriguez v. Google LLC – FAQ On September 3, 2025, a federal jury in the Northern District of California awarded over $425 million in compensatory damages to two certified classes.16Google Web App Activity Lawsuit. Rodriguez v. Google LLC
On January 30, 2026, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg denied Google’s motion to decertify the class and vacate the verdict. He also denied the plaintiffs’ request to add $2.36 billion in disgorgement.17Courthouse News (Court Filing). Rodriguez v. Google LLC, Order on Decertification and Disgorgement With interest, the judgment stood at roughly $440 million by March 2026. Google may still appeal.18Law360. Rodriguez v. Google LLC – Case Articles
Android Cellular Data: Taylor and Csupo
Taylor v. Google LLC alleged Android phones sent data to Google without user permission, eating into users’ cellular data allowances. Google agreed to a $135 million settlement covering people in the United States (excluding California) who used an Android device with a cellular plan from November 12, 2017 through the date of final approval. The maximum individual payout is $100, and class members can file at federalcellularclassaction.com.19CNET. Used an Android Phone After 2017? You Could Get Part of Google’s $135 Million Settlement20Federal Cellular Class Action. Taylor v. Google LLC Settlement The final approval hearing was set for June 23, 2026.21Class Action (Court Filing). Taylor v. Google LLC – Notice
California residents were excluded because of a parallel state case, Csupo v. Google LLC. A jury in that case awarded $314.6 million in July 2025, after which the parties settled for $350 million with additional disclosure and consent requirements. The Santa Clara County Superior Court granted final approval on February 24, 2026.22Cellular Data Class Action. Csupo v. Google LLC – FAQs
Google Assistant Recording Suit
In In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation, users alleged Google Assistant recorded audio from Pixel phones, Nest speakers, and Pixelbooks without the “OK Google” trigger.23Google Assistant Privacy Litigation. In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation Google agreed to a $68 million settlement for people who bought a Google-made device linked to a Gmail account between May 2016 and December 2022. Preliminary approval was filed in January 2026 and the court hearing was set for March 19, 2026.24ClaimDepot. Google Privacy Litigation
Incognito Mode and Real-Time Bidding
Two more privacy cases produced non-cash resolutions. In Brown v. Google, over allegations that Google tracked users in Chrome’s Incognito mode, Google agreed to delete billions of records, stop using technology that detects private browsing, and keep the option to block third-party cookies in Incognito for five years. The settlement paid no monetary damages to the class, though individual plaintiffs kept their claims for arbitration.25The New York Times. Google Chrome Browser Data26Class Action (Court Filing). Brown v. Google LLC – Settlement Agreement
In In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation, over the sale of user data through real-time bidding auctions, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted final approval on March 26, 2026. Google must create an opt-in “RTB control” allowing users to strip identifiers and IP addresses from bid requests. The judge called the settlement “adequate, but by no means excellent” and cut requested attorney fees from over $128 million to $21.9 million.27Legal Newsline. Judge: Results of Google RTB Privacy Deal Exaggerated; Attorney Fees Slashed
European Fines and DMA Proceedings
The pressure abroad is heavier still. In September 2025, the European Commission fined Google €2.95 billion for abusing its dominance in digital advertising intermediation by favoring its AdX exchange over rivals.28CNBC. Google, Meta, Big Tech Face €6 Billion in EU Fines Google was given 60 days from the January 2026 publication of the decision to propose compliance measures.29SCIDA Project. Google Adtech Decision: The Commission’s Landmark Self-Preferencing Case
In January 2026, the Commission also opened formal proceedings under the Digital Markets Act to test whether Google is meeting two DMA obligations: giving third-party developers effective interoperability on Android (especially for AI services competing with Gemini) and sharing search data with rival search engines on fair terms. The Commission set a six-month deadline aimed at mid-2026.30European Commission. Commission Opens Proceedings to Assist Google in Complying With Interoperability and Online Search Data Sharing In its March 2026 compliance report, Google conceded it would begin placing the browser chosen through the EU choice screen in the prominent “hotseat” slot on new Pixel devices, while maintaining that the step was not legally required.31Open Web Advocacy. Google Backs Down, Will Grant Hotseat in EU Browser Choice Screen
EU fines against Google, Apple, and Meta for antitrust and competition violations have exceeded €6 billion since the start of 2024. All are being contested, so the Commission has not collected the full amounts, though the companies must post provisional payments or financial guarantees.28CNBC. Google, Meta, Big Tech Face €6 Billion in EU Fines
One Case Google Won
Not every suit has landed. On March 20, 2026, Judge Mehta dismissed an antitrust case brought by Helena World Chronicle LLC and Emmerich Newspapers Inc., two small publishers who accused Google of using its search dominance to monopolize online news through AI Overviews and Gemini.32Law360. Google Defeats News Publishers Antitrust Suit Over AI Tools The court found the publishers lacked antitrust standing in the search market because they are not purchasers there, failed to plausibly allege monopoly power in online news given hundreds of competitors and low barriers to entry, and were time-barred under the Clayton Act’s seven-year statute of limitations from challenging Google’s earlier acquisitions of Android, YouTube, and DeepMind.33MediaNama. US Court Dismisses News Publishers Antitrust Case Against Google Over News and AI Use