TL;DR
A California jury found in July 2025 that Google misused Android users’ paid cellular data by passively sending information from idle phones without permission, awarding about $314.6 million to a certified California class. A similar iOS case over background cellular data (focused on iOS 13) did not win class certification, though Apple faced earlier “Wi-Fi Assist” litigation.
What the Android Lawsuit Claimed
Plaintiffs alleged that Google designed Android to transmit a variety of telemetry and service traffic in the background—even when phones were “completely idle,” with no movement, no touch input, and all apps closed. They further alleged Google chose to allow these transmissions over cellular networks rather than restricting them to Wi-Fi, causing users to unknowingly spend their paid data allowances.
The legal framing was not only about privacy but also about property value. Plaintiffs argued that their cellular data allotments, which they paid carriers for, were appropriated by Google for its own benefit. This alleged misuse was presented as a form of conversion (taking something of value) and trespass to chattels (interfering with users’ devices).
Outcome: A $314.6M Verdict—With an Appeal Coming
On July 1, 2025, a Santa Clara County jury found Google liable and awarded $314.6 million in damages. Google has already announced plans to appeal, maintaining that background connections are necessary for core services and disclosed in its terms.
The verdict covered about 14 million California Android users. A nationwide case covering the other 49 states is currently scheduled for trial in April 2026.
👉 Reuters coverage of the verdict provides a detailed breakdown of the decision.
Why This Matters Legally
The jury’s finding rested on California tort and consumer-protection law. The claims emphasized that Google used something of measurable value—cellular data—without users’ permission.
Importantly, the court accepted that harm can exist even without a direct privacy violation. Here, the economic harm was framed as unauthorized data charges. The ruling could influence how courts interpret similar allegations against tech companies.
Did Apple iOS Face Similar Claims?
Yes, Apple has faced litigation with related themes:
-
iOS 13 “Uninstalled Apps” / background cellular data case
-
Allegations: Certain iOS 13 versions allegedly used cellular data without permission, even after users disabled cellular access for specific apps or enabled “Low Data Mode.” Usage was sometimes mislabeled under “Uninstalled Apps,” confusing consumers.
-
Status: In July 2025, a federal judge denied class certification, meaning the case cannot proceed as a class action, though individuals could still pursue claims.
-
-
iOS 9 “Wi-Fi Assist” class action (2015–2016)
-
Allegations: Apple enabled Wi-Fi Assist by default, causing iPhones to switch to cellular when Wi-Fi signals were weak. Users claimed this led to surprise data charges.
-
Status: Filed as a class action, it centered on disclosure and default settings rather than idle-device telemetry.
-
👉 Bloomberg Law reporting on Apple’s iOS 13 case confirms the denial of class certification.
Android vs. iOS: Quick Comparison of Lawsuits
| Platform | Core allegation about cellular data | Status/Outcome (as of Sept. 2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Android (California case) | Idle devices transmitted data to Google over cellular without consent, using paid data | Jury verdict: $314.6M against Google, appeal pending; nationwide trial April 2026 |
| Apple iOS 13 | Devices allegedly used cellular data without permission, mislabeled usage as “Uninstalled Apps” | Class certification denied; individuals may still sue |
| Apple iOS 9 (Wi-Fi Assist) | Default feature switched traffic to cellular when Wi-Fi was weak, causing surprise charges | Filed as class action; focused on defaults & disclosures |
How Background Data Traffic Happens
Modern smartphones maintain constant communication for:
-
Push notifications
-
Time synchronization
-
Software/security updates
-
Telemetry and diagnostics
-
Pre-fetching content or refreshing tokens
Plaintiffs didn’t argue that all background traffic was wrongful. Instead, they claimed Google could have routed non-essential transmissions over Wi-Fi only, sparing consumers’ cellular allotments. The jury agreed this distinction mattered.
Legal Theories You’ll See Repeated
-
Conversion & Unjust Enrichment: Treats cellular data as property taken without permission.
-
Trespass to Chattels: Claims interference with device resources like bandwidth and battery.
-
Consumer Protection / UCL: Frames conduct as unfair or deceptive, often hinging on how disclosures and settings are presented.
Lessons for Consumers
-
Audit permissions: Check per-app cellular access and background refresh settings.
-
Use Low Data or Data Saver modes: Both Android and iOS provide these options.
-
Monitor system services: On iOS, watch for “Uninstalled Apps”; on Android, monitor “System” usage.
-
Prefer Wi-Fi for large updates: Especially if you’re on a metered or capped plan.
What to Expect Next
-
Google’s appeal: Higher courts will test whether consent and disclosures were adequate and whether cellular data counts as “property” for conversion.
-
Nationwide litigation: The April 2026 case could expand liability far beyond California.
-
Apple scrutiny: Even though class certification was denied, Apple still faces individual lawsuits and continuing privacy litigation.
SEO Perspective: Why Interest Spikes
-
Newsworthy verdicts generate search demand (“Google Android data lawsuit payout”).
-
Consumer concern fuels long-tail queries (“why is my phone using data when idle”).
-
Comparisons (Android vs. iOS) create evergreen search value.
Publishers can rank by breaking down verdicts, explaining technical background data, and showing users actionable steps.
Conclusion
The Google Android data verdict is a landmark case that highlights how courts may treat background device activity as a property-rights issue rather than solely a privacy issue. Apple’s related lawsuits illustrate that iOS isn’t immune from scrutiny, but so far plaintiffs haven’t achieved the same class-level success.
As appeals proceed and the nationwide Android trial approaches, this issue will remain hotly contested, with implications for millions of smartphone users.