Yes, if you owned a mobile device and maintained a Google Account between January 2014 and December 2023, you potentially had a claim in multiple Google location tracking settlements. The primary federal settlement totaled $62 million and resolved claims that Google continued tracking user locations even when the “Location History” toggle was turned off—a feature users reasonably assumed would stop Google from recording their movements. However, if you had a valid claim, the deadline to file has passed: the federal settlement’s claim deadline of June 30, 2026 has already closed.
This means no new individual claim submissions are being accepted, though the settlement funds have been distributed or are being allocated. Understanding whether you qualified for these settlements requires knowing the specific time periods, device types, and Google Account configurations involved. Multiple settlements resolved location tracking disputes simultaneously: a $62 million federal court settlement, a $391.5 million multistate agreement with 40 state attorneys general, and a $1.375 billion settlement with Texas. Each had different eligibility windows and different distributions.
Table of Contents
- What Was the Federal Settlement About and Who Could Claim?
- The Multistate Settlement and Why It Took So Long to Resolve
- The Texas Settlement—The Largest Single-State Recovery
- Individual Compensation and Where the Money Went
- Why the Claim Deadline Mattered and Why It’s Now Closed
- What Specific Location Tracking Practices Did These Settlements Cover?
- Litigation Risks and Future Location Privacy Claims
What Was the Federal Settlement About and Who Could Claim?
The federal settlement resolved Case No. 5:18-cv-05062-EJD in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The court approved the settlement on April 18, 2024, with final approval on May 3, 2024. The lawsuit alleged that from January 1, 2014 through December 4, 2023, google misled Android and iOS users about location tracking.
Specifically, Google allowed users to disable “Location History”—a feature visible in Google Account settings—but continued collecting location data through other means, including through “Web & App Activity” and other background processes that users were often unaware of or could not easily disable. To have a valid claim in the federal settlement, you had to be a U.S. resident who had a Google Account and owned a mobile device (Android or iOS) at any point during the class period. The critical requirement was that you had disabled “Location History” in your Google Account settings while Google was simultaneously storing your location data through other mechanisms. This meant the settlement applied to users who believed they had turned off location tracking but continued to be tracked without their knowledge or consent. For example, a user who disabled Location History in 2016 but whose location was still recorded when they opened Google Maps or allowed “Web & App Activity” to run would potentially qualify.
The Multistate Settlement and Why It Took So Long to Resolve
On November 14, 2022, forty state attorneys general announced a separate settlement with Google for $391.5 million. This settlement addressed the same core issue but focused on a slightly different legal theory: that Google engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by misrepresenting how disabling Location History would affect tracking. The settlement period covered January 2014 through 2020, which predates the federal settlement’s more recent window. Many users overlapped between both settlements, though the state-based settlement did not result in individual payouts to consumers—instead, the settlement required Google to provide clearer disclosures and to change how it presents location tracking controls to users going forward.
The multistate settlement is significant because it represents the largest coordinated action by state consumer protection agencies against Google over location practices. The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) also was involved in coordinating aspects of Google’s response to state investigations. A limitation of the multistate settlement was that it did not include individual consumer compensation; it focused on prospective behavioral change and restitution to state programs and consumer protection efforts. This meant that even if you lived in one of the 40 participating states, you did not receive a direct payment from this settlement. However, if you lived in Texas, you had a separate and substantially larger settlement to consider.
The Texas Settlement—The Largest Single-State Recovery
On July 17, 2026, Texas finalized a $1.375 billion settlement with Google—the largest settlement ever reached between any U.S. state and Google over privacy violations. This settlement covered three distinct practices: geolocation tracking (similar to the federal and multistate cases), tracking of users in Incognito Mode (a feature users expected to prevent data collection), and the collection of biometric identifiers without user consent. The Texas settlement expanded the scope beyond what the federal settlement addressed, particularly regarding Incognito Mode tracking and biometric data collection.
The Texas settlement was larger than the federal settlement because it incorporated a broader range of alleged misconduct and reflected the state’s determination that Google’s practices warranted substantial financial penalties. However, like the multistate settlement, the Texas settlement also did not distribute funds directly to affected consumers. Instead, the settlement funds were allocated to the state of Texas for consumer protection programs, education, and attorney general enforcement efforts. This structure is common in state attorney general settlements but is often frustrating for consumers who expected direct compensation.
Individual Compensation and Where the Money Went
Many Google Account holders who suffered from the location tracking practices received zero dollars in individual compensation from the $62 million federal settlement. Instead of distributing funds to potentially millions of class members (which would result in payments of a few cents or dollars per person), the court-approved settlement distributed the $62 million as follows: approximately $42 million went to nonprofit organizations focused on privacy advocacy and digital rights, including the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard, the ACLU Northern California, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Press, and the Center for Democracy & Technology. The remaining approximately $20 million was allocated to attorneys’ fees and litigation costs.
This distribution reflects a decision made by the settlement claims administrator and approved by the court: that paying out millions of tiny individual checks would waste resources on transaction costs, and instead, the funds would more effectively serve the class by funding organizations that work on privacy protection for all internet users. A comparison: in some other technology settlements, individual claims have been processed and small payments distributed, but in this case, the scale of the potential class made that impractical. Users who believed they would recover money directly from this settlement learned that their recovery came in the form of public goods (privacy advocacy funding) rather than personal restitution.
Why the Claim Deadline Mattered and Why It’s Now Closed
The federal settlement established a claim deadline of June 30, 2026 for individuals to submit claims if they wanted to ensure their participation in the settlement class and receive any potential individual award (though, as noted, awards ended up being zero). This deadline passed on June 30, 2026. Now that the deadline has closed, no new claim forms are being accepted. If you did not submit a claim by June 30, 2026, you are not part of the settlement class and cannot pursue compensation through this specific settlement.
The reason these deadlines are strict is because settlement agreements require a defined class period and a final cutoff date to conclude all claims processing and distribution. Once the deadline passes, the settlement enters its final distribution phase, and the process is closed to new claimants. This is a significant limitation for anyone who missed the deadline because they were unaware of the settlement or did not see the notices. Settlement notices are typically sent via email and published on settlement websites, but they do not always reach all eligible parties. If you deleted emails from settlements administrators or did not monitor settlement websites, you may have missed the June 30, 2026 deadline without realizing it.
What Specific Location Tracking Practices Did These Settlements Cover?
The settlements addressed several distinct Google systems and features that continued to collect location data even when Location History was disabled. The primary mechanism was “Web & App Activity,” a setting in Google Account that records interactions with Google services. Even if Location History was off, Web & App Activity could still capture location signals through Google Maps usage, Google Search queries, YouTube video watches with location context, and other Google services. Another tracking method involved Google’s collection of location data from cell tower information and WiFi network data, which Google uses to infer precise location without requiring explicit GPS permission.
The settlements also touched on the distinction between Android-native location settings and Google Account-level settings. Many users turned off location tracking at the Android system level but did not realize that Google’s own services could still collect location through other channels. This layering of location collection mechanisms—multiple toggles and settings spread across different parts of the operating system and the Google Account—was part of the confusion Google was accused of deliberately creating. Google’s defense in settlement negotiations argued that users should have checked “Web & App Activity” and other settings, but regulators countered that the company’s interface design made it unreasonably difficult for average users to understand or control all the ways Google could track them.
Litigation Risks and Future Location Privacy Claims
These settlements do not prevent future litigation over location tracking practices. Google continues to collect location data as part of its core business model, and privacy advocates expect additional lawsuits and regulatory actions as technology and user expectations evolve. For example, the growth of location tracking through wearables, connected cars, and smart home devices has expanded the scope of potential privacy disputes. A key distinction in these settled cases was that they focused on deception—Google said users could turn off tracking by using specific settings, but tracking continued anyway.
Future litigation might address different deceptions or more aggressive location collection practices. One important limitation of these settlements is that they do not create a private right of action for future location tracking complaints. The settlements only covered the historical practices during the specified class periods. If you believe Google is currently engaging in undisclosed location tracking, you cannot file a claim in these settlements; you would need to wait for a new lawsuit to be filed and certified, or contact your state attorney general’s office. Additionally, these settlements do not restrict Google’s use of location data that was collected during the class period—the data remains in Google’s possession, and the legal restrictions on Google’s use of that data are not explicitly outlined in the public settlement documents.
- —