68M won't do shit but give a slap on the wrist. Make the amount in the billions and they'll learn.
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
274 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
79355 readers
4201 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Google really needs to be shut down.
They had to pay pennies while hoarding in a huge profit. Well, that will teach them!
I was originally part of this class-action. When the lawyers decided to settle I refused to accept the settlement, purely because Google admitted no fault and also required us to agree that we couldn't ever sue over the issue again in the future even if new evidence came to light. The dollar amount they offered wasn't tiny (it wasn't large by any means either), but I felt it was in no way a valid amount for what was being claimed. Not to mention the lawyers were taking close to or maybe more than half of the settlement money, which I find offensive considering they decided to settle the case and allow Google to wash their hands of the matter. Luckily I reserved my right to sue again in the future, but I'd either have to go at it alone or try to form a new class-action suite. I'm still incredibly disappointed that the lawyers handling the case backed down and took the settlement, I would have rather lost the case and discovered the truth than take a pittance and let Google off.
Edit: I almost forgot, the most aggregious requirement to the settlement was the non-disclosure agreement that you had to accept which meant you couldn't say anything at all about the settlement or the case if you took the money. It also appeared to me that they were trying to apply the non-disclosure even if you didn't take the settlement, which I don't know how you can be held to a NDA if you haven't signed and accepted the NDA. The whole thing smelled of bullshit to me.
One would almost start to think the lawyers were out for the settlement money...
It was definitely the path that required the least amount of effort from them and they happily pocketed near 50% of the settlement.
It's a shameless plutocracy at this point. The mask is off, no one is pretending to follow the rules.
Deleted replied to the wrong comment.
My understanding of false accepts is when it think it hears the wake word and starts recording.
Sometimes it happens when I watch TV or rarely in a normal conversation.
If this happens, what else would you expect to happen? It's going to behave exactly as if you woke it.
Stop talking if you notice, but unless you expect a perfect wake word rate with zero mistakes there's nothing that can be done.
Now, if Google is intentionally waking it when it knows it's not the right word that's another matter entirely.
Edit: I'd refuse to accept any wrong doikg as well if it's legit false accepts. But if it was intentional, this isn't even a slap on the wrist for them.
That is a paltry amount, whomever the class action lawyers are did a shit job, and should've taken it to a jury.
No doubt they figured a judge would overturn any large judgement though, the judges being so thoroughly captured by the rich, especially appeals courts and higher.
68 million is probably a rounding error in their yearly lawyer budget alone.
Settlements should not be allowed in cases where its companies versus people.
They should be a de jure admission of guilt, is what they should be
Yeah, why settle? They should stop spying on us and we all know that.
You'd rather have them drag it out in court until the person can't afford to fight the case?
I think we would all prefer if the US would stop pretending the 6th amendment didn't exist and if trials could be carried out without endless delays.
The sixth amendment is for criminal cases.
Settlements only happen with the consent of both parties. I don't see that as a problem. If you really don't want a settlement, then opt out of the class action and bring your own case or do what you can to make sure the lawyer for the class action won't settle. That I suppose is unlikely, as the lawyer will do whatever ends up being the most likely win case scenario in their opinion and the number of people in the class action will probably mean you have no individual say in it (not sure how that particular piece works but no class action suit that approached me gave me any options for what I wanted out of it).
As far as I'm aware the lawyers didn't consult with the class-action members, or at the very least I was never asked if we should accept the settlement or not, the lawyers just accepted. Alternatively you could opt out of the settlement if you wanted, which is what I chose to do, mostly because the settlement amount was far too low, in my opinion, and they required signing and accepting an NDA which I was not willing to do.
I don't think it should be acceptable to buy your way out of a court case which reveals truth and justice.
That's the entire point of a civil case, money exchanging to pay for damages. If the plaintiffs are happy then fuck it, they wanted money and now they have it
These are civil cases, buying your way out is all that happens in the best of circumstances in a civil case. It is just a matter of how much you have to pay to buy out. Punitive damages might do some extra justice, but what would that be? In the end you have to imagine that some radom person has sued you unjustly and decide how you want an innocent person to be treated, or perhaps they sued you with some small real point to their lawsuit, do you want the default to be that you are ruined? Maybe you didn't intend harm, but want to either make amends or at least get past the lawsuit so you can get on with your life, do you want no recourse possible?
In the end, if Google was forced out of business, many(most) of us would be way worse off. That is not the ideal outcome. Ideally, the case brings enough money to the plaintiff to right any hardship caused and, in the case of punitive damages, does just enough hardship to the defendant that they are dissuaded from pursuing that course of action, but you aren't trying to kill them.
But are you sure you don't want to opt out and go 1v1 vs a trillion dollar company???
It is kinda problematic that it matters how deep pockets of both parties are in court, isn't it? This system does not seem fair to me, unless fair means "the biggest guy always wins". Ahhh the American dream, how amazing...
Not kinda, it is problematic.
And how do you think the claimants would feel about that? If we had a functioning justice system we wouldn't have to.
Google did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement of the class-action case
A settlement is an admission no matter what Google says. Headline should read, "Google Admits To Using Its Consumer Hardware To Spy On Users."
It's always not an admission. Sometimes it's more expensive to win a case than to pay out.
Not saying that's what happened here, but a settlement doesn't always mean the one who settled is at fault.
Google doesn't care about that kind of money, they care about the discovery process.
A settlement is an admission
I mean it's an "admission" that it would cost more money to fight in court than it would to make it go away. Or that they would likely lose, regardless of whether they're guilty of anything. Other than that, no.
Oh, yeah. That $3.07 settlement covers the damages with a little to spare. Now I can put a down-payment on some French fries.
It's less about making you whole and more about hurting the corporation. Although that's a drop in the bucket for Alphabet. "Cost of doing business".
Sounds like neither
It's less like "hurting" the corporation, and more like the government &/or legal system claiming their share in the proceeds of the crime... essentially racketeering.
I mean, really, you probably have $0 worth of damages to worry about. If something in particular happens, like corporate espionage hurting your business that causes real damage, then you have the freedom to sue for that particular thing. (Supposing you aren't locked out by the settlement.)
Yeah them and every other tech company that has apps. The punishments should be much higher for companies who violate people's rights
$68 million is chump change to Google.
This is like me getting a speeding fine for $1.
This is the cost of doing business for them.
Buying themselves free, how convenient.
In the past gods absolved kings. Nowadays money absolves capitalists. Very convenient indeed.
The "In God We Trust" bit on our money leaves out that money is God now.
Free of what, exactly?
Google spying on its users? To push ads? Preposterous!
68 m&m's? hey big spender!
No, 68Ms, that's only 34 M&Ms