Court Denies Google’s Bid to Compel Arbitration Four Years into Litigation
Publications
May 2024
A California federal judge recently denied Google’s motion to arbitrate a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that Google violated privacy statutes by concealing the fact that Google-Assistant-enabled devices could accidentally record users’ conversations without users’ permission or knowledge.
In its ruling denying Google’s request to send the case to arbitration, the federal court determined that the plaintiffs satisfied the two-prong test for waiver: (1) knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration and (2) intentional acts inconsistent with the existing right to arbitrate.
With respect to the first prong, the court determined that Google knew about its existing right to compel arbitration because it drafted the arbitration provisions in the relevant agreements.
The court then summarized and examined Google’s conduct over the course of the litigation:
- Google mentioned the possibility of compelling arbitration for the first time in its answer to the plaintiffs’ complaint two and half years into the litigation, after already filing four motions to dismiss.
- Following its answer, Google did not move to compel arbitration and instead spent nine months litigating the case, including by arguing discovery matters and filing a motion for summary judgment.
- Google filed its motion to compel arbitration after the completion of fact and expert discovery and seven months after class certification.
As a part of its analysis, the court distinguished Google’s case from a recent Ninth Circuit decision—Armstrong v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 59 F. 4th 1011 (9th Cir. 2023)—that illustrated conduct that did not rise to the level of waiver of the right to compel arbitration. In Armstrong, the defendant repeatedly reserved its right to arbitration in every substantive filing, did not ask the court to weigh in on the merits of the case, did not engage in meaningful discovery, and did not litigate the case for a prolonged period of time before filing its motion to compel. Based on Google’s litigation conduct summarized above, the court concluded that the two cases were not the same and concluded Google waived its right to arbitrate.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
Publications
May 2024
A California federal judge recently denied Google’s motion to arbitrate a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that Google violated privacy statutes by concealing the fact that Google-Assistant-enabled devices could accidentally record users’ conversations without users’ permission or knowledge.
In its ruling denying Google’s request to send the case to arbitration, the federal court determined that the plaintiffs satisfied the two-prong test for waiver: (1) knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration and (2) intentional acts inconsistent with the existing right to arbitrate.
With respect to the first prong, the court determined that Google knew about its existing right to compel arbitration because it drafted the arbitration provisions in the relevant agreements.
The court then summarized and examined Google’s conduct over the course of the litigation:
- Google mentioned the possibility of compelling arbitration for the first time in its answer to the plaintiffs’ complaint two and half years into the litigation, after already filing four motions to dismiss.
- Following its answer, Google did not move to compel arbitration and instead spent nine months litigating the case, including by arguing discovery matters and filing a motion for summary judgment.
- Google filed its motion to compel arbitration after the completion of fact and expert discovery and seven months after class certification.
As a part of its analysis, the court distinguished Google’s case from a recent Ninth Circuit decision—Armstrong v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 59 F. 4th 1011 (9th Cir. 2023)—that illustrated conduct that did not rise to the level of waiver of the right to compel arbitration. In Armstrong, the defendant repeatedly reserved its right to arbitration in every substantive filing, did not ask the court to weigh in on the merits of the case, did not engage in meaningful discovery, and did not litigate the case for a prolonged period of time before filing its motion to compel. Based on Google’s litigation conduct summarized above, the court concluded that the two cases were not the same and concluded Google waived its right to arbitrate.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Amanda Shafer Berman to Speak on Energy and Administrative Law at WEN-DC Webinar
As the Supreme Court's new Term begins, Jenner & Block Partner Amanda Shafer Berman will join a Women's Energy Network of Washington, DC (WEN-DC) webinar on how the Court's decisions are shaping the energy sector.
October 14, 2026
Publications
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman Quoted in Bloomberg Law on Senate Permitting Overhaul Bill
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman was quoted in an October 5 Bloomberg Law article, "Permitting Deal Gives Projects Defense Against Litigation Delays," on the Senate's new permitting overhaul package and its expected impact on litigation over federal permitting reversals.
October 2026
Event
Partner John Storino to Speak at Sandpiper Partners' “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable”
On October 8, Partner John Storino will serve as a panelist at the “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable,” hosted by Sandpiper Partners in Chicago.
October 8, 2026
Event
Partner Meghan Greenfield to Speak on Supreme Court Climate Case at Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference
On Wednesday, October 7, Partner Meghan Greenfield will speak on a panel titled "Boulder County v. Suncor Energy: What the Supreme Court's Climate Case Means for the Energy Industry" at the Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.
October 7, 2026
Publications
The Form Rules Everything: A Seventh Circuit Ruling on ERISA's Substantial Compliance Doctrine
Partner Joseph Torres and Special Counsel Jennifer Beach authored an article for Employee Relations Law Journal examining the Seventh Circuit's decision in Packaging Corp. of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees v. Langdon, a ruling that addresses both the standard of review in ERISA interpleader actions and the continued viability of the substantial compliance doctrine for changing plan beneficiaries.
October 5, 2026
Recognition
Jenner & Block Rises in American Lawyer Rankings for Summer Associate Experience
Jenner & Block ranked 14th nationally in The American Lawyer’s 2026 Summer Associate Satisfaction Survey, jumping 10 spots from last year. The annual survey measures summer associate satisfaction at US law firms based on ratings provided directly by summer associates across key firm qualities.
October 2, 2026