I don't think the marginal revenue is directly relevant. The relevant question is how big does the fine have to be to discourage illegal behavior in the future? The marginal revenue of the behavior is somewhat relevant because the fine should obviously be at or higher than that amount, but that's really a lower bound.
They lost a similar case in 2012 about lying to Safari users about privacy settings and were fined $22.5M (~$31M today). They lost one in 2010 about violating the Wiretap Act for collecting packets from unencrypted wifi networks. They lost another one in 2010 for Google Buzz. Some of those were settled, but I would consider it roughly equivalent to losing if they'd rather buy their way out than have to present a case.
Given that they previously lost a case (to California, again, no less) with similar underlying issues, I would consider this to be flagrant flouting of the law and it should be punished proportionally to that flagrancy. Roosevelt said to "speak softly and carry a big stick". Google didn't listen to the soft speaking, so California should hit them with the big stick hard enough to remind them that they only exist in California at the pleasure of the people of California.
My proposal would be a fine equal to 100% of revenue derived from Californians for the period they were violating the law. They need a fine big enough that the C-levels start asking legal whether they can use the bathroom or not, and a promise that all future violations will be treated the same way. For pity's sake, California has a 3 strikes system for individuals. It's not like the state doesn't do disproportionate punishment. If Google were a person, they would've been in jail a decade ago and probably staring down California's 3-strike law and life in prison.
They lost a similar case in 2012 about lying to Safari users about privacy settings and were fined $22.5M (~$31M today). They lost one in 2010 about violating the Wiretap Act for collecting packets from unencrypted wifi networks. They lost another one in 2010 for Google Buzz. Some of those were settled, but I would consider it roughly equivalent to losing if they'd rather buy their way out than have to present a case.
Given that they previously lost a case (to California, again, no less) with similar underlying issues, I would consider this to be flagrant flouting of the law and it should be punished proportionally to that flagrancy. Roosevelt said to "speak softly and carry a big stick". Google didn't listen to the soft speaking, so California should hit them with the big stick hard enough to remind them that they only exist in California at the pleasure of the people of California.
My proposal would be a fine equal to 100% of revenue derived from Californians for the period they were violating the law. They need a fine big enough that the C-levels start asking legal whether they can use the bathroom or not, and a promise that all future violations will be treated the same way. For pity's sake, California has a 3 strikes system for individuals. It's not like the state doesn't do disproportionate punishment. If Google were a person, they would've been in jail a decade ago and probably staring down California's 3-strike law and life in prison.