www.thecentersquare.com – By Bethany Blankley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-05-12 13:44:00
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton secured a \$1.375 billion settlement with Google, marking the largest recovery against the tech giant by any state. This follows multiple lawsuits Paxton filed against Google for violating Texas privacy laws by unlawfully tracking users’ data. The settlement comes three years after a similar lawsuit where Paxton accused Google of continuing to collect location data despite users’ privacy settings. This win is part of Texas’ broader efforts to hold Big Tech accountable, with Paxton previously winning significant settlements against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and Google over various privacy violations.
(The Center Square) – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has won a $1.375 billion settlement in principle with Google, the highest recovery received against Google by any state. It’s also the latest of several major wins against big tech in lawsuits filed by Texas.
“In Texas, Big Tech is not above the law. For years, Google secretly tracked people’s movements, private searches, and even their voiceprints and facial geometry through their products and services. I fought back and won,” Paxton said. “This $1.375 billion settlement is a major win for Texans’ privacy and tells companies that they will pay for abusing our trust.”
The settlement was reached three years after Paxton sued Google multiple times alleging the search engine giant violated Texas privacy laws and was unlawfully tracking and collecting users’ private data even after a 2018 multi-state settlement. In 2018, Google agreed to a $391.5 million settlement with 40 sates whose attorneys general argued it was tracking users’ locations without their permission or knowledge.
Three years later, Android and iPhone users’ location data was still being tracked by Google even if their privacy settings were on.
Paxton sued Google in January 2022 alleging it systematically misled and deceived Texas consumers in violation of Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act by continuing to track their personal location even when they disabled the location feature on their phone. “Google then uses the deceptively gathered data to push advertisements to the consumer, earning the Big Tech company enormous profits,” Paxton argued.
Despite its claims, Google continued to track users’ location through other settings and methods it didn’t disclose, Paxton argued.
In May 2022, Paxton sued Google again, amended the January complaint alleging Google’s Incognito mode, or “private browsing,” which “implies to consumers that Google will not track your search history or location activity” was in fact doing that.
This was Paxton’s fifth lawsuit against Google, he argued at the time. By October 2022, Paxton sued Google again, this time for unlawfully capturing and using biometric data of millions of Texans without receiving their informed consent to do so.
This lawsuit alleged that Google “collected millions of biometric identifiers, including voiceprints and records of face geometry, from Texans through its products and services like Google Photos, Google Assistant, and Nest Hub Max,” and exploited Texans’ personal information “for its own commercial interests … a knowing violation of the state’s Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act,” Paxton said.
The settlement announcement also comes after Paxton last July secured a $1.4 billion settlement with Facebook parent Meta for unlawfully collecting and using facial recognition data. At issue was Facebook Tag Suggestions, which allowed users to “tag” images of people in a photo. Since 2011, Meta automatically turned on the feature for all Texas Facebook users without their expressed consent. For more than a decade, it “ran facial recognition software on virtually every face contained in the photographs uploaded to Facebook, capturing records of the facial geometry of the people depicted,” knowing Texas law prohibited it from doing so without providing informed consent, Paxton alleged.
In 2022, Texas sued Meta alleging it violated Texas’ Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act and Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Texas’ 2024 victory against Meta was the largest settlement ever obtained by any state and the largest privacy settlement Paxton ever won.
The settlement demonstrated Texas’ “commitment to standing up to the world’s biggest technology companies and holding them accountable for breaking the law and violating Texans’ privacy rights. Any abuse of Texans’ sensitive data will be met with the full force of the law,” Paxton said.
Despite Texas’ historic win, lawsuits continued against big tech.
In 2023, Paxton announced an $8 million settlement with Google in a lawsuit filed over deceptive advertising promoting a Google Pixel 4 smartphone.
Seven months later, Texas secured another settlement with Google, this time for $700 million, over anticompetitive practices. Texas joined a multi-state class action against Google in 2021, arguing it unlawfully monopolized the Android app market by signing anticompetitive contracts to prevent other app stores from preloading on Android devices, paying app developers not to launch products on rival app stores, and creating other technological barriers. In this lawsuit, Google was ordered to paid $630 million in restitution to consumers who purchased apps on Google Play Store over a five-year period.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Right
The article primarily reports on Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuits and settlements with large tech companies, focusing on privacy violations and anticompetitive practices. It features direct quotes from Paxton that highlight his legal actions and victories against “Big Tech.” While the article is largely factual and centered on Paxton’s claims and legal outcomes, the tone and framing portray Paxton’s efforts in a strongly positive light, emphasizing his role as a defender of Texans’ privacy and consumer rights. This framing aligns with a conservative or center-right perspective, given Paxton’s Republican affiliation and the emphasis on holding large tech companies accountable, a stance often supported in conservative circles. However, the article does not overtly criticize opposing viewpoints or present a politically polarized narrative, maintaining mostly informational content with a slight center-right leaning through its positive portrayal of Paxton’s actions.
www.kxan.com – Christopher Adams – 2025-08-19 07:15:00
SUMMARY: Negotiations between Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS) and airlines are ongoing to update the use and lease agreement, effective Jan. 1, 2025, guiding operations through at least 2035. This agreement is crucial as AUS plans a new terminal with 20+ gates, doubling capacity by 2030. Southwest aims to be the “anchor tenant” of the new concourse, proposing to expand to 18 gates, supporting significant passenger growth and economic impact. Delta also supports the agreement, seeing continued growth potential. Finalizing this partnership is vital for funding the Airport Expansion and Development Program and ensuring smooth future operations at AUS.
Katerin, a 24-year-old DACA recipient and University of Houston graduate student, faced a tuition bill nearly doubling to $7,900 after a federal court ruling ended in-state tuition benefits for many undocumented students under the 2001 Texas Dream Act. Although DACA recipients like her should still qualify, inconsistent university responses and lack of state guidance have caused confusion and financial strain. Advocates criticize the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for inadequate implementation support. Some universities demand original documents or misclassify students, forcing many to pay higher out-of-state rates temporarily. Katerin successfully challenged her status, restoring her in-state tuition, but worries about others facing debt or dropout risks.
Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
Katerin felt her whole body flush when she opened her fall tuition bill from the University of Houston: It had nearly doubled to $7,900.
The 24-year-old has lived in Texas since her parents brought her to the U.S. from Mexico when she was 2. Thanks to the 2001 Texas Dream Act, she’s always qualified for in-state tuition as she worked toward a master’s degree in social work.
A federal court ruling swiftly gutted the law in June, ending the benefit for thousands of undocumented students. But Katerin is in the country legally, as a recipient of the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, which protects certain immigrants from deportation and allows them to work legally.
Students like Katerin, who asked that her last name not be used over concerns about a relative’s undocumented status, should still qualify for in-state tuition, attorneys for Texas said in a court filing. But advocates say some Texas universities are misinterpreting the court ruling, leaving students like Katerin with confusing messages and sky-high tuition bills just as classes are about to begin.
Advocates call it an urgent and widespread problem fueled by the lack of state guidance on how to implement the ruling. They worry hundreds of students are being sent incorrect tuition bills and will not have the time, guidance, resources or support to challenge them.
“As someone who was undocumented, I know there are some students who are going to be like, ‘I’m not even going to push this,’” said Julieta Garibay, co-founder of United We Dream, a national immigrant advocacy group. “I’m watching TV and there are people who are literally getting picked up in the middle of the street and getting deported to some other country, not their country of origin. Why am I going to make noise when something could happen to me?”
Two weeks after the court’s ruling, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board instructed colleges to identify and reclassify students who are not lawfully present in the country as nonresidents for the fall semester. It offered no guidance on how institutions should determine lawful presence or what documentation to accept.
A spokesperson for the board did not answer questions from The Texas Tribune.
Advocates say without clear guidance from the state, students’ ability to continue paying in-state tuition rates can hinge on where they attend college, not whether they qualify.
“What we’ve seen is a chaotic, haphazard and inconsistent implementation across the state with grave emotional consequences for students … but more importantly, with dire consequences,” said Barbara Hines, who helped write the Texas Dream Act 24 years ago and founded the immigration clinic at the University of Texas School of Law.
Katerin, who is protected from deportation and legally allowed to work in the U.S., shows a copy of the email she received from the University of Houston notifying her of a tuition change based on her classification as non-resident. Credit: Hope Mora for The Texas Tribune
Hines said the coordinating board should be doing more to help schools implement the ruling. At a minimum, she said, the agency should issue clear guidance that aligns with the Texas Department of Public Safety’s categories of lawful presence, lists acceptable proof documents, and sets reasonable timelines for schools to process students’ paperwork. She also urged the agency to ensure that universities have trained staff to handle residency reclassifications and communicate accurate information to students.
How schools are responding to the change
To qualify for in-state tuition under the 2001 Texas Dream Act, students were required to sign an affidavit stating that they would apply for permanent U.S. residency as soon as they were eligible. In 2024, 18,593 Texas college students signed that affidavit.
The Tribune contacted the nine public colleges with the largest number of students who signed that affidavit to learn how they are implementing the court’s ruling. Those schools were Dallas College, Houston Community College, Lone Star College, the University of Houston, Texas A&M University, the University of Texas at Austin, University of Texas at Dallas, the University of Texas at Arlington, and the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley.
Texas A&M was the only school that said it will accept the same documents the Texas Department of Public Safety uses to establish lawful presence for a Texas Real ID, which includes an employment authorization document for DACA recipients. The university said it will accept documents until Sept. 10, the fall census date when universities finalize residency status and enrollment counts.
A coalition of immigrant rights and legal advocacy groups singled out UT-Austin for creating confusion about the ruling in communications with students. UT-Austin did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Members of the coalition shared with the Tribune messages UT-Austin sent students saying they had until July 24 to submit documents. One message incorrectly stated, “due to a new Texas law effective June 2025, we now require proof of lawful immigration status.” This was wrong in two ways: there was no new state law, only a federal court ruling, and the message substituted “lawful immigration status” for “lawful presence,” the term used in the court’s ruling. That narrower category excludes people with DACA, temporary protected status and pending permanent U.S. residency applications.
Garibay said UT-Austin is also directing students to a residency questionnaire that omits some current lawful presence categories. She said students in those groups are bumped out of the questionnaire and told to contact the enrollment office, where many get unclear or no answers.
Garibay and other advocates told the Tribune they have accompanied some students to the enrollment office, where they were advised to pay the higher out-of-state tuition rate and seek reimbursement later, despite the process taking up to four weeks.
The advocates called the advice unreasonable given the other time-sensitive financial decisions students must make at the beginning of the school year, such as whether to sign a lease for an apartment. Garibay also noted that even if UT-Austin students pay tuition in installments, the university requires students to pay the full amount by October.
UT-Austin is not the only university where the coalition says students have encountered problems. The coalition said many colleges lack dedicated, trained staff to assist students with questions about the in-state tuition changes. Some have demanded students provide original documents or mistakenly told some noncitizens they could not enroll.
“For many students, that means they have no passport or permanent resident card or other documents, and they’re without them for weeks,” said Barbara Hines, former clinical professor of law and founder of the immigration clinic at the University of Texas School of Law.
The coalition declined to name those schools, citing their responsiveness to the group’s feedback and corrective actions.
Katerin edits her schoolwork in her Houston office on Aug. 17, 2025. She works full-time as a case worker while also balancing a masters program in social work. Credit: Hope Mora for The Texas Tribune
Of the schools the Tribune contacted, Houston Community College and UT-Arlington did not respond. Dallas College said it could not respond to questions by the Tribune’s deadline. Lone Star College declined to answer questions. UT-Rio Grande Valley declined to answer questions, but reiterated a June statement that it aims to minimize disruption to students while following the law. UT-Dallas referred the Tribune to a website that on Monday noted staff were reviewing residency documents submitted between July 16-31.
Hines, who helped write the Texas Dream Act 24 years ago, said the agency should have done more to help schools implement the ruling. She said it should have allowed them to grandfather in students who were relying on the Texas Dream Act to graduate from college. Alternatively, she said, the coordinating board could have delayed implementation until 2026 to give schools time to create orderly procedures and students time to understand the requirements.
Texas House Democrats made a similar request in a letter earlier this summer, urging the coordinating board to create a temporary tuition category so affected students could continue paying the in-state tuition rate this fall. Commissioner Wynn Rosser rejected the idea, saying the agency did not have the authority to create new categories or to contradict the federal court order.
Kristin Etter, director of policy and legal services at the Texas Immigration Law Council, thinks students could challenge the increases under a state law that bars universities from raising tuition after they have registered for classes. She said it is unclear whether it applies to residency reclassifications, though some schools appear to be interpreting that it does not.
Fighting to prove she still qualified
Katerin is one of six children and entered the DACA program when she was 16.
She has never received financial aid or taken out loans, she said, instead paying for her education by working full-time at a nonprofit child placing agency that licenses foster homes and conducts monthly check-ins on the well-being of foster children. She earned an associate degree from Houston Community College, a bachelor’s degree from the University of Houston-Downtown, and was admitted to UH’s Graduate College of Social Work last year. Her long-term goal is to become a social work professor.
On July 22, UH emailed Katerin saying it had changed her status to nonresident because of the ruling. UH gave her until Aug. 8 to prove lawful presence. The message listed documents she could submit as evidence, including a work authorization card issued to DACA recipients. But didn’t explicitly say DACA recipients still qualified for in-state tuition.
The university’s online student portal created confusion, too. Her emails to the registrar’s office went unanswered. When she called, she was told to wait more than a week to see if she qualified for in-state tuition.
DACA students don’t qualify for federal aid, such as the Pell Grants that go to families making less than $50,000 a year.
Frustrated by the lack of progress, Katerin reached out to one of her professors, who connected her with an immigrant rights group. With their guidance, she resubmitted documents showing she is a DACA recipient, along with a new Texas Dream Act affidavit the coordinating board had revised. On July 31, UH restored her in-state tuition, reducing her bill to $4,349.32.
“I feel like if it wasn’t for me moving, and if it wasn’t for me speaking up, the university, they wouldn’t care,” Katerin said.
In a statement, the University of Houston said it is complying with the court ruling, but did not answer questions about how the changes affect DACA recipients or how it is preventing misclassifications.
Katerin, who hopes to one day become a social work professor, shows drawings from the children that she works with. After fighting the tuition hike, UH restored her in-state tuition, reducing her bill to $4,349.32. Credit: Hope Mora for The Texas Tribune
She expects to graduate in the spring and has saved enough money in case DACA recipients lose in-state tuition eligibility before then, but she believes many students in her situation will be forced to take on debt or drop out if it does. The experience, she said, eroded the pride she once felt in being a UH cougar.
“Now, I’m like, ‘let’s get through it. Let’s graduate already,’” she said.
The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage.
Disclosure: Houston Community College, JLone Star College, Texas A&M University, University of Houston, University of Texas – Arlington, University of Texas – Dallas, University of Texas – Rio Grande Valley and University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
More all-star speakers confirmed for The Texas Tribune Festival, Nov. 13–15! This year’s lineup just got even more exciting with the addition of State Rep. Caroline Fairly, R-Amarillo; former United States Attorney General Eric Holder; Abby Phillip, anchor of “CNN NewsNight”; Aaron Reitz, 2026 Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General; and State Rep. James Talarico, D-Austin. Get your tickets today!
The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
This article focuses on the challenges faced by undocumented and DACA students in Texas regarding in-state tuition eligibility following a federal court ruling. It highlights the impacts on students, the shortcomings of state guidance, and the responses from universities, emphasizing the struggles of immigrant communities and advocates’ concerns. The tone is sympathetic to immigrant rights and critical of bureaucratic inefficiencies, aligning with center-left perspectives that support immigrant protections and educational access while maintaining a factual and balanced presentation without overt partisanship.
SUMMARY: Texas Rep. Nicole Collier is staging a protest by refusing to leave the House chamber after Speaker Dustin Burrows ordered lockdown and restrictions amid a quorum break by Democrats. Collier declined to sign a release allowing police escort, calling it an infringement on her dignity. Democrats labeled her “detained as a political prisoner,” livestreaming her protest with supporters rallying outside. Meanwhile, the Texas House redistricting committee advanced a Republican-favoring map aimed at increasing GOP congressional seats, a move criticized by Collier for undermining her majority-minority district and constituents’ representation. The bill likely proceeds to full House approval.
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/c9e57f59a429b5ccbb4cbd76c36b846d/0817%20In%20State%20Tuition%20DACA%20HM%2006.jpg)
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/1fbdf1c86a00b97a15ae7bb37e387804/0817%20In%20State%20Tuition%20DACA%20HM%2008.jpg)
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/d649bf32a23aa597523c633aac81286b/0817%20In%20State%20Tuition%20DACA%20HM%2016.jpg)
