The State sued Google under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act alleging it deceptively collected data from Texans through Android, Chrome and other services, for example by telling users that turning off "Location History" would stop location tracking while continuing to gather similar data through "Web & App Activity," and by tracking activity in Chrome's Incognito Mode. Google offers products to millions of Texans, has a Midlothian data center and about a million square feet of Texas office space, and had Texas revenue of more than $10.5 billion in 2021.¹

Google filed a special appearance arguing that the alleged misrepresentations originated outside Texas and were not directed at Texas. After jurisdictional discovery and a hearing the Victoria County trial court denied the special appearance, and the Thirteenth Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed, holding the evidence showed Google's employees directed the alleged misleading statements from afar. The State petitioned in February 2025, the case was abated repeatedly on joint motions from July through September 2025, and on October 24, 2025 the Court lifted the abatement, reinstated the petition and granted the agreed motion.

Petition for review from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a special appearance; granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for rendition of judgment on the parties' settlement under Rule 56.3, October 24, 2025.

Whether the Thirteenth Court erred in holding Google not subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas because one part of its alleged conduct occurred in California, and whether it erred by limiting its inquiry to the State's operative petition, ignoring evidence offered in response to the special appearance.¹

State of Texas (Petitioner): the decision conflicts with Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, which does not require strict causation between forum contacts and claims, and with State v. Volkswagen, under which a defendant that crafts misrepresentations abroad for use in Texas is subject to jurisdiction.

Google (Respondent): its alleged statements originated outside Texas and were publicly available, not specific to or directed at Texas; no response to the petition is in the file reviewed.¹

The State argued the decision would let other defendants avoid accountability for violating Texas law and would force the Attorney General to seek relief in California courts, and that the case is an opportunity to clarify special-appearance procedure and resolve a split among the courts of appeals.¹

None noted