Ever used Google Chrome in incognito mode? You could be entitled to up to $5k

Eligibility and Scope

• Discussants confirm this is limited to:
  • US residents, age 18+.
  • Used Chrome’s Incognito between June 1, 2016 and Dec 1, 2023.
  • Expected privacy and “did not always consent” to Google tracking.
• Resident vs citizen: non‑citizen US residents have received class‑action money before.
• Non‑US users would need to sue under their own country’s laws.

Is Incognito Misleading?

• One side: Incognito has always said it only affects local storage:
  • Clear splash screen every time.
  • Explicit bullets that websites, employer/school, and ISP can still see activity.
  • Argument: if users don’t read that, it’s a literacy problem, not deception.
• Other side: The branding is inherently misleading:
  • Name “Incognito,” spy icon, and past phrases like “browse privately.”
  • Earlier wording didn’t explicitly say “including Google”; that was added later.
  • Non‑technical users reasonably assume Google itself won’t track those sessions.
  • Some call this a human‑literacy issue, not a tech‑literacy one.
• Additional concern: Google both runs the browser and many sites/ads, so it’s plausible users thought Incognito also signaled “don’t track me” to Google servers.

What Google Allegedly Did

• Thread cites reporting that:
  • Google stored standard and Incognito browsing in the same profile.
  • That combined data was used for personalized ads.
• Some argue Google could have technically separated Incognito data, as other browsers avoid this issue.

Legal Posture and Payout Expectations

• Earlier Incognito class action was settled with no direct monetary relief.
• Settlement allows individuals to file their own state cases; current effort is a mass individual arbitration, not a standard class action.
• $5k is a theoretical maximum; actual payout could be much lower or zero.
• Some users report sizable checks from other tech settlements; others expect only a few dollars.

Risks, Ethics, and Data Concerns

• Retainer language warns that losing might, in some circumstances, expose claimants to paying opposing-party costs; some see this as a red flag.
• Law firm asks for detailed descriptions of Incognito usage and searches, which several commenters find intrusive or “sketchy.”
• Ethical debate:
  • Some feel only people who were genuinely misled or harmed should join.
  • Others treat such actions as a “tax on corporations” and routinely sign up.
• Several fear potential retaliation (e.g., account closures or hiring bias) and weigh that against any possible payout.