Location: Austin, Texas — In one of the largest data privacy settlements in U.S. history, Google has agreed to pay $1.375 billion to the state of Texas over charges of unauthorized tracking and biometric data collection. The settlement follows a multi-year investigation and lawsuit led by Texas Attorney General’s office, accusing the tech giant of violating the state’s biometric privacy law by secretly collecting facial and voice recognition data from millions of users without consent.
The payout, announced officially by Attorney General Javier Reyes during a press conference on Monday, underscores the rising scrutiny of Big Tech companies and their handling of personal data. Texas, which has one of the most comprehensive biometric privacy laws in the country, held Google accountable for what the state labeled as “deceptive and unlawful surveillance practices.”
Background: Texas Leads the Charge on Biometric Privacy
The investigation into Google’s practices began in 2021 after a whistleblower and multiple media reports alleged that the company was collecting biometric data — including facial geometry and voiceprints — from users through platforms like Google Photos, Nest devices, and Google Assistant, all without proper user consent.
According to the Texas Biometric Privacy Act, companies must inform individuals in writing before collecting their biometric identifiers and must obtain explicit consent. The law also prohibits the sale or unauthorized disclosure of such data.
The Texas Attorney General’s office filed a lawsuit against Google in 2022, accusing the company of using facial recognition to scan and categorize images uploaded to Google Photos and storing voice data through smart home devices like Google Nest and Android phones. The lawsuit claimed Google continued these practices even after internal memos raised red flags about potential legal violations.
Settlement Details: $1.375 Billion and Policy Overhaul
The historic $1.375 billion settlement is structured to provide restitution, fund compliance audits, and enforce structural reforms within Google’s operations. Key elements of the agreement include:
- Restitution Fund: $900 million allocated to a compensation pool for affected Texas residents whose biometric data was collected without consent.
- Compliance and Monitoring: $250 million set aside for independent audits and a multi-year monitoring process overseen by the Texas Attorney General’s Office.
- Policy Reforms: Google must update its privacy policies to include clear biometric data usage disclosures and obtain affirmative consent from users before collecting or processing such data.
- Data Deletion Requirements: Google is required to delete all biometric identifiers collected from Texas residents within 90 days unless they have explicit consent.
- Public Reporting: Google must publish annual transparency reports detailing biometric data collection, use, and deletion practices.
Google Responds: “We Respect the Law, But Disagree”
Following the announcement, Google issued a statement acknowledging the settlement but reiterated that its practices were lawful under federal guidelines. “While we strongly disagree with the claims made by the Texas Attorney General, we are committed to resolving this matter in the best interest of our users,” said Kent Walker, Google’s President of Global Affairs.
Google emphasized that biometric features in services like Google Photos and Google Assistant are used to enhance user experience and that data is stored securely. However, privacy advocates argue that these features were often enabled by default and lacked adequate disclosure.
National and Industry Reactions
The settlement has sent shockwaves across the tech industry, with privacy experts and state officials hailing it as a turning point in biometric data regulation.
“This is a wake-up call for Big Tech,” said Eva Martinez, director of the Center for Digital Rights. “Biometric data is among the most sensitive information a person can share. Companies must be held to the highest standards when collecting and using it.”
Several other states, including Illinois, California, and New York, have similar lawsuits pending against Google and other tech companies. Texas’s success may empower these states to pursue even stronger action.
The biometric data industry — including companies involved in facial recognition, smart home devices, and AI-driven personalization — could face increased regulation and compliance costs in the wake of this case.
The Role of Texas’s Biometric Privacy Law
Texas is one of only a few states with a dedicated biometric privacy law. The Texas Biometric Privacy Act (TBPA), passed in 2009, requires that:
- Companies obtain informed consent before collecting biometric data.
- Data must not be sold or disclosed without user permission.
- Collected biometric data must be destroyed within a reasonable time.
Legal analysts say the TBPA provided Texas with a strong legal foundation to challenge Google’s practices. Unlike federal privacy laws, which are often general and limited in scope, Texas’s law explicitly covers facial recognition and voice data.
“Texas’s aggressive enforcement shows that state-level legislation can have real teeth,” said legal scholar Dr. Timothy Rowe from the University of Texas Law School.
User Impact: What Texans Can Expect
Texans affected by Google’s biometric practices are expected to receive compensation from the restitution fund. While the exact process for claims has not yet been announced, the Attorney General’s office said it would create a portal for eligible individuals to submit their details.
Users of services such as Google Photos, Nest Cams, Google Assistant, and Android phones may be eligible, particularly if they used facial recognition, voice search, or other AI-powered personalization features without knowingly opting in.
Additionally, the settlement will impact how Google operates in Texas. For example:
- Google must show users clear prompts to enable or disable biometric features.
- Data collection must be disabled by default.
- Users must be able to delete their biometric data easily.
These changes are expected to be rolled out in Texas first, with potential expansion to other states facing similar legal scrutiny.
Precedents and Comparisons: How This Compares Globally
The $1.375 billion settlement is one of the highest privacy-related penalties in the world. It surpasses Facebook’s $650 million class-action settlement in Illinois over facial recognition and comes close to European GDPR-related fines.
For comparison:
- France fined Google $270 million in 2022 for cookie policy violations.
- The European Union fined Amazon $888 million in 2021 over GDPR breaches.
- Australia settled with Google for AU$75 million for location data violations.
Texas’s case marks the largest state-level fine in U.S. history over biometric data, setting a new benchmark for enforcement.
What Comes Next: Ongoing Investigations and Legislative Pushes
Following this victory, Texas lawmakers are reportedly working on updating the TBPA to cover emerging technologies like retinal scans, emotion detection, and AI profiling. A bipartisan group of legislators is also pushing for a national biometric privacy framework modeled after the Texas law.
Meanwhile, Google may face additional lawsuits. Consumer groups and civil liberties organizations are urging other states to investigate the company’s practices, particularly in regions where smart devices are widely used in schools and public infrastructure.
Conclusion: A Landmark Case in Digital Privacy
The $1.375 billion settlement between Google and the state of Texas is more than just a financial penalty — it is a signal that privacy violations involving biometric data will face serious consequences in the United States. As technology becomes more embedded in daily life, governments and regulators are asserting the right of individuals to control how their most personal data is collected, stored, and used.
For Google, this case could represent a turning point in its approach to transparency and user trust. For other tech companies, it’s a stark reminder: biometric data is not just another dataset — it’s a civil liberty.
