A California judge approved a $22.5 million settlement that the FTC handed down against Google over charges that it misrepresented how users of Apple's Safari browser were having their Internet activity tracked.

A California judge last week approved that the FTC handed down against Google over charges that it misrepresented how users of Apple's Safari browser were having their Internet activity tracked.

In accepting the deal, the court rejected a complaint from Consumer Watchdog that demanded that Google admit liability and said the injunction was inadequate and the civil penalty too small.

According to the complaint, Google placed advertising cookies on the computers of Safari users who visited sites within Google's DoubleClick advertising network. Google, however, had wrongly told Safari users they would be opted out of such tracking thanks to Safari's default settings. The search giant also said it was a member of the Network Advertising Initiative, which requires firms to disclose their data collection and use practices.

Google's actions, the FTC said, did not violate U.S. law, but they did violate a over Google's Buzz program that required Google to implement privacy safeguards, submit to regular audits, and banned it from future privacy misrepresentations. The deal was in October 2011.

The $22.5 million civil penalty is the largest the FTC has ever obtained for a violation of a commission order.

The order has three requirements: a $22.5 million penalty; a system whereby Google deletes its cookies from the Safari browser until at least Feb. 15, 2014; and a report submitted to the FTC within 20 days of Feb. 15, 2014 that provides the agency with an update on Google's compliance with the order.

"The Court hereby finds that the Proposed Order is both procedurally and substantively fair, adequate, and reasonable," U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said in a Friday ruling.

Illston shot down the objections from Consumer Watchdog. According to the group, the court should have imposed a "permanent" injunction, rather than one that lasts only until 2014. But, Judge Illston said, a permanent injunction only refers to one that happens after the close of a case. The judge pointed to Black's Law Dictionary, which says that "despite its name, a permanent injunction does not necessarily last forever."

"The Court finds that the injunction is fair, adequate and reasonable," the judge wrote.

Furthermore, the court found that the $22.5 million penalty is sufficient since consumers did not lose any money and the Safari cookies did not result in significant revenue for Google.

Finally, requiring Google to admit liability is "contradicted by legal history and precedent." If all these cases required companies to admit to wrongdoing, it's likely that no deals would ever be reached, the court concluded.