Nov. 16, 2012), is a case in which the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved a stipulated order for a permanent injunction and a $22.5 million civil penalty judgment, the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has ever won in history.

In this case, the FTC found Google liable for misrepresenting "privacy assurances to users of Apple's Safari Internet browser".

For those Gmail users who clicked on "Sweet!," the FTC alleged that they were not adequately informed that the identity of the individuals they emailed most frequently would be made public by default.

"[7] As stated in the complaint, the FTC concluded that "...the setup process for Gmail users who enrolled in Buzz did not adequately communicate that certain previously private information would be shared publicly by default.

In view of Google's conduct, the complaint addressed five relevant causes of action: (i) collecting covered information, (ii) serving targeted advertisements, (iii) misrepresenting Network Advertising Initiative Code compliance, (iv) civil penalties, and (v) prayer for relief.

However, Google agreed to: (i) pay a civil penalty of $22.5 million; (ii) maintain until February 15, 2014, a system that had to delete cookies from Safari browser users; and (iii) file a report with the FTC within 20 days of February 15, 2014 which would document that Google had complied with the remediation component of the order.

[12] Consumer Watchdog objected to the Proposed Order, calling for a greater civil penalty and an admission of liability from Google.

[13] Consumer Watchdog further argued that the injunction will be in effect for too short of a duration, and that the Order gives Google the ability to resume its unauthorized practices after February 15, 2014.

"[14] This case had a great impact on the technology industry as it showed the range of enforceability with regard to FTC consent orders.

The arguments are in some respects different than in other similar cases addressing consumer privacy, and the complaint (Google II Complaint) and proposed order provide significant insight into the reasoning of the FTC, which is very valuable information for companies that collect or use personal information and prefer to reduce the risk of government action.

"[15] Additionally, the case also highlighted the impact that this case may have caused in the international community: "the FTC action against the world's most popular search engine provides the US government with an opportunity to show the rest of the world, and especially the European Union and the Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation member economies, that it cares about privacy and is serious about enforcement.