Google has agreed to pay $1.4 billion to settle a lawsuit filed by the state of Texas, resolving allegations that the company unlawfully collected biometric and location data without user consent. This marks one of the largest privacy-related settlements in U.S. history and follows similar actions against Meta in 2024. The case highlights growing regulatory scrutiny of tech giants’ data practices, particularly around biometric identifiers like voiceprints and facial geometry.
TL;DR: Key Takeaways
- Settlement Amount: $1.4 billion, matching Meta’s 2024 penalty for similar violations.
- Allegations: Unauthorized collection of biometric data (voiceprints, facial geometry) and location tracking via Chrome Incognito and Google Maps.
- Legal Basis: Texas’s Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI), requiring informed consent for biometric data collection.
- Broader Context: Part of a wave of state-level privacy enforcement, with parallel cases pending against Google elsewhere.
Settlement Details and Legal Framework
The Texas Attorney General’s office accused Google of systematically violating CUBI by harvesting biometric data through products like Google Assistant (voiceprints) and Photos (facial geometry), as well as tracking location data even when users disabled the setting. The state argued this violated Texas’s requirement for explicit consent before collecting such sensitive information. Notably, the settlement does not require Google to admit wrongdoing, though the company stated it had already implemented policy changes addressing some allegations.
This case mirrors Meta’s 2024 $1.4 billion settlement over Facebook’s facial recognition practices, which set a precedent for state-level enforcement of biometric privacy laws. Texas AG Ken Paxton emphasized the Google settlement as a warning to other tech companies, stating: “No corporation, no matter how large or powerful, is above the law when it comes to protecting Texans’ personal data.”
Technical and Operational Implications
From a technical standpoint, the lawsuit underscores the risks of opaque data collection architectures. Key findings from court documents reveal:
| Data Type | Collection Method | Product Involved |
|---|---|---|
| Biometric Data | Voice recordings analyzed for unique voiceprints | Google Assistant |
| Facial Geometry | Photo metadata extraction | Google Photos |
| Location Data | Persistent tracking despite user opt-out | Google Maps/Android |
The case also highlights challenges in implementing genuine user consent mechanisms, particularly when data flows through multiple services. Forensic analysis showed that even when users disabled location history, certain Google apps continued collecting precise coordinates via Wi-Fi and cellular triangulation.
Relevance to Security Professionals
For security teams, this settlement reinforces several critical priorities:
- Data Inventory: Maintain granular logs of all biometric/location data collection points to demonstrate compliance.
- Consent Verification: Implement technical controls to ensure features relying on sensitive data cannot activate without explicit user approval.
- Third-Party Audits: Regular independent reviews of data pipelines, as Google’s internal policies failed to prevent violations.
The technical disclosures also provide red teams with new vectors for privacy-focused penetration tests, particularly around:
- Testing opt-out mechanisms for persistent tracking
- Validating biometric data storage encryption
- Auditing metadata stripping in media uploads
Ongoing Legal Exposure
Google faces additional litigation, including a class action (Rodriguez v. Google) over data collection via Google Analytics for Firebase, set for trial in August 2025. The company also settled a $391 million multistate case in 2022 over location tracking practices, suggesting systemic issues in its privacy controls.
This pattern of enforcement actions indicates that state attorneys general are increasingly treating privacy violations as consumer protection matters, with penalties scaling to corporate revenue. Security leaders should anticipate similar scrutiny, particularly around:
- Biometric data retention policies
- Location data aggregation across services
- Dark patterns in consent interfaces
Conclusion
The Texas settlement represents a watershed moment in privacy enforcement, demonstrating that even technical implementations of data collection can carry billion-dollar consequences. As regulatory frameworks like CUBI proliferate, organizations must align their technical architectures with legal requirements at the design phase, not just through post-hoc policy adjustments. The case also illustrates how forensic analysis of product behaviors can become pivotal evidence in regulatory actions – a consideration for both compliance and security testing programs.
References
- “Google to pay Texas $1.4 billion”, CNBC, 2025.
- Texas Attorney General Press Release, 2025.
- “Meta settlement analysis”, Hunton Andrews Kurth, 2024.
- “Google class action lawsuit”, SC Media, 2025.
- Rodriguez v. Google court docket, Bloomberg Law, 2025.
