14 million Android users in California to get $314.6m from Google. Check reason
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Google asked to pay $314.6 million
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
A jury in San Jose, California, said on Tuesday that Google misused customers' cellphone data and must pay more than $314.6m to Android smartphone users in the state, according to an attorney for the plaintiffs. The verdict found Google liable for collecting information from idle Android devices without user permission, sending and receiving data even when phones were inactive. Google has said it did nothing wrong and will appeal.The jury sided with plaintiffs representing an estimated 14 million California Android users in a class action lawsuit filed in 2019, causing what the lawsuit had called "mandatory and unavoidable burdens shouldered by Android device users for Google's benefit."The class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of an estimated 14 million California Android users, first filed in 2019. Plaintiffs argued that Google's actions imposed "mandatory and unavoidable burdens" for its own benefit, primarily using the data for targeted advertising and consuming users' cellular data at their expense.The plaintiffs' legal team argued that phone users' data is their personal property under California law and that Google is thus liable for data used while customers' phones were idle dating back to 2016. The plaintiffs' attorney Glen Summers said the verdict "forcefully vindicates the merits of this case and reflects the seriousness of Google's misconduct."Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said in a statement that the company would appeal, and that the verdict "misunderstands services that are critical to the security, performance, and reliability of Android devices."Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda told Newsweek: "We strongly disagree with today's decision and will appeal. This ruling is a setback for users, as it misunderstands services that are critical to the security, performance, and reliability of Android devices."Google told the court that no Android users were harmed by the data transfers and that users consented to them in the company's terms of service and privacy policies.Another group filed a separate lawsuit in federal court in San Jose, bringing the same claims against Google on behalf of Android users in the other 49 states. That case is scheduled for trial in April 2026.Google is one of several major tech companies expected to reduce its headcount in July, according to Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act notices, which must be issued prior to layoffs. According to the Los Angeles Times, Google was one of a number of Bay Area companies to lay off employees in the first quarter of the year.(With inputs from Reuters)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
IIIT Bangalore celebrates graduation of 372 students
BENGALURU: The International Institute of Information Technology Bangalore (IIIT-B) marked its 25th annual convocation on Sunday, celebrating the graduation of 372 students from across five academic programmes. The graduates included 142 students from the Integrated Master of Technology (iMTech) programme, 192 from the Master of Technology (MTech) programme, 12 from the Master of Science in Digital Society, 10 from the Master of Science by Research, and 16 PhD scholars. Three institute gold medals, along with several other academic and merit-based awards, were presented to outstanding students. Valipireddy Pranathi walked away with two prestigious honours: the institute gold medal in MTech and the Visvesvaraya Scholarship Award. 'I had software job offers after my BTech, but my heart was always in core electronics,' she said. 'With constant push from my professors, unwavering support from family and friends, and a desire to keep growing, I'm proud to graduate with a 4.0 CGPA.' Bengaluru girl Sookthi Bhatt Kav won a gold medal in MSc Digital Society. 'Coming from a History background, I never imagined this. But IIIT-B showed me that tech is also about people and power. My thesis explored how UPI impacts inclusion and surveillance. This win is for all social science voices in tech.' 'I was probably one of the last to make it into IIIT-B,' recalled Monjoy Narayan Choudhury, the iMTech CSE topper and Google-bound graduate from Guwahati, who also got the Visvesvaraya Scholarship Award. 'From struggling in science as a kid to switching streams and publishing AI research, I wanted to prove that people like me, from the Northeast, belong here too.' For Chaitanya Manas, who was named Student of the Year, the key was consistency and involvement. 'You can't plan for an award like this. I just showed up at debate club, TEDx, council work, and still kept my grades up. It still feels surreal.' Quietly working behind the scenes, Anshul Akhilesh Madurwar earned the Late Shri N Ramarao Medal for All-Rounder of the Year. 'I'm not the loudest person. But I kept pushing quietly, eight papers, assistive tech, global collaborations. This medal means everything.'
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Why has Google's ‘AI overviews' sparked an antitrust firestorm in the EU?
The story so far: Google's AI-powered summaries, known as AI Overviews, are facing a formal antitrust complaint from a coalition of independent publishers in the European Union, as per a report by Reuters. Their complaint, lodged with the European Commission, alleges that Alphabet's Google is abusing its market dominance, siphoning traffic and revenue from publishers, and threatening the viability of independent journalism. The feature, rolled out in over 100 countries, represents Google's major strategic bet on integrating generative AI directly into its core search experience. However, this move has ignited fierce opposition from content creators who claim it undermines the very ecosystem that Google's search engine relies on. What is Google AI Overviews? AI Overviews are AI-generated summaries that appear at the top of Google's search results page, positioned above the traditional list of blue links. Their purpose is to provide users with a quick, synthesised answer to their query, drawing information from multiple web sources. These overviews can range from a few paragraphs to lists or tables and often include links to the source websites within the generated text. First introduced as an experiment called Search Generative Experience (SGE) in May 2023, the feature is now a core part of Google Search in many regions. How do AI Overviews work? When a user enters a search query, Google's systems determine if generative AI could be particularly helpful in providing a comprehensive answer. If so, it employs a customised version of its advanced AI model, Gemini, to process the request. The system doesn't rely solely on the AI's pre-existing knowledge. Instead, it uses a technique called Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), where it actively fetches and analyses relevant information from its web index. The AI then synthesises this information into a coherent summary. Google states that these overviews are designed to be backed up by top web results, and include links to allow users to 'dig deeper.' Why are publishers accusing Google? The crux of the dispute lies in how these AI-generated answers impact the businesses that create the original content. The Independent Publishers Alliance, alongside groups like the Movement for an Open Web and the legal advocacy non-profit Foxglove, argues that this new feature hurts competition and is causing 'serious irreparable harm,' as per the Reuters report citing documents it has seen. The publishers' key complaints stem from the concern that their content will be disincentivised because of Google's AI feature. By providing a direct summary at the top of the page, users have less incentive to click through to their websites. This leads to a significant drop in traffic, which in turn slashes advertising revenue and subscriber numbers, the lifeblood of many online publications. Their complaint alleges that Google is 'misusing web content' by scraping information from publisher sites to train its AI models and generate summaries without fair compensation. Since May 2024, Google has also begun placing ads within these AI Overviews, meaning it is directly monetising content that publishers have invested in creating. The complaint highlights that there is no way to opt out of having their content used for AI Overviews without also being removed from Google's main search results. Given Google's dominance in search, becoming invisible on the platform is not a feasible option for any publisher. How are regulators getting involved? The formal complaint, per the report, was filed with both the European Commission and the U.K.'s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The publishers are asking for 'interim measures' to stop Google from using the feature while the case is investigated, to prevent further damage. While the European Commission has not commented publicly on the complaint, it has previously investigated Google for other anticompetitive practices. The U.K.'s CMA has confirmed receipt of the complaint and noted that AI Overviews fall within the scope of its ongoing work to designate Google with a 'strategic market status.' This designation would grant the CMA more power to regulate Google's conduct, potentially including rules that give publishers more control over how their content is used in AI summaries without having to be de-listed from search entirely. How is Google defending AI Overviews? Google has pushed back against the publishers' claims. A company spokesperson stated that 'New AI experiences in Search enable people to ask even more questions, which creates new opportunities for content and businesses to be discovered.' The company maintains that it sends billions of clicks to websites every day and that traffic fluctuations can be due to many factors, such as seasonal interest and regular algorithm updates. Google also claims that clicks from pages with AI Overviews are of 'higher quality,' meaning users are more likely to stay on the sites they visit.
Mint
6 hours ago
- Mint
We're Losing the Plot on AI in Universities
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- An artificial intelligence furor that's consuming Singapore's academic community reveals how we've lost the plot over the role the hyped-up technology should play in higher education. A student at Nanyang Technological University said in a Reddit post that she used a digital tool to alphabetize her citations for a term paper. When it was flagged for typos, she was then accused of breaking the rules over the use of generative AI for the assignment. It snowballed when two more students came forward with similar complaints, one alleging that she was penalized for using ChatGPT to help with initial research, even though she says she did not use the bot to draft the essay. You may be interested in The school, which publicly states it embraces AI for learning, initially defended its zero-tolerance stance in this case in statements to local media. But internet users rallied around the original Reddit poster, and rejoiced at an update that she won an appeal to rid her transcript of the academic fraud label. It may sound like a run-of-the-mill university dispute. But there's a reason the saga went so viral, garnering thousands of upvotes and heated opinions from online commentators. It laid bare the strange new world we've found ourselves in, as students and faculty are rushing to keep pace with how AI should or shouldn't be used in universities. It's a global conundrum, but the debate has especially roiled Asia. Stereotypes of math nerds and tiger moms aside, a rigorous focus on tertiary studies is often credited for the region's economic rise. The importance of education — and long hours of studying — is instilled from the earliest age. So how does this change in the AI era? The reality is that nobody has the answer yet. Despite the promises from edtech leaders that we're on the cusp of 'the biggest positive transformation that education has ever seen,' the data on academic outcomes hasn't kept pace with the technology's adoption. There are no long-term studies on how AI tools impact learning and cognitive functions — and viral headlines that it could make us lazy and dumb only add to the anxiety. Meanwhile, the race to not be left behind in implementing the technology risks turning an entire generation of developing minds into guinea pigs. For educators navigating this moment, the answer is not to turn a blind eye. Even if some teachers discourage the use of AI, it has become almost unavoidable for scholars doing research in the internet age. Most Google searches now lead with automated summaries. Scrolling through these should not count as academic dishonesty. An informal survey of 500 Singaporean students from secondary school through university conducted by a local news outlet this year found that 84% were using products like ChatGPT for homework on a weekly basis. In China, many universities are turning to AI cheating detectors, even though the technology is imperfect. Some students are reporting on social media that they have to dumb down their writing to pass these tests or shell out cash for such detection tools themselves to ensure they beat them before submitting their papers. It doesn't have to be this way. The chaotic moment of transition has put new onus on educators to adapt, and shift the focus on the learning process as much as the final results, Yeow Meng Chee, the provost and chief academic and innovation officer at the Singapore University of Technology and Design, tells me. This doesn't mean villainizing AI, but treating it as a tool, and ensuring a student understands how they arrived at their final conclusion even if they used technology. This process also helps ensure the AI outputs, which remain imperfect and prone to hallucinations (or typos), are checked and understood. Ultimately, professors who make the biggest difference aren't those who improve exam scores but who build trust, teach empathy and instill confidence in students to solve complex problems. The most important parts of learning still can't be optimized by a machine. The Singapore saga shows how everyone is on edge, and whether a reference-sorting website even counts as a generative AI tool isn't clear. It also exposed another irony: Saving time on a tedious task would likely be welcomed when the student enters the workforce — if the technology hasn't already taken her entry-level job. Demand for AI literacy in the labor market is becoming a must-have, and universities ignoring it does a disservice to cohorts entering the real world. We're still a few years away from understanding the full impact of AI on teaching and how it can best be used in higher education. But let's not miss the forest for the trees as we figure it out. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Catherine Thorbecke is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia tech. Previously she was a tech reporter at CNN and ABC News. More stories like this are available on
