In re: Google Location History Litigation

Background

This data-privacy class action concerned allegations that Google tracked and stored location data from approximately 247.7 million U.S. mobile-device users while the users’ “Location History” setting was disabled. After two rounds of motions to dismiss, the court found that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded claims for intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the California Constitution’s right to privacy, and unjust enrichment.

The parties conducted approximately 26 months of discovery, participated in three full-day mediation sessions and additional settlement discussions, and reached a settlement about five years into the litigation. The proposed Settlement Class covered natural persons residing in the United States whose location information Google stored while Location History was disabled at any time from January 1, 2014, through the notice date.

Settlement Terms

Google agreed to pay $62 million into a non-reversionary settlement fund. The fund covers attorney fees and expenses, class notice and administration costs, and service awards; the remaining funds are allocated to 21 approved cy pres recipients—organizations that will use the money to advance data-privacy interests.

The settlement also requires Google, for at least three years, to provide notices explaining how Location History and Web & App Activity collect location information, explain how users can disable those settings, and maintain automatic deletion of covered location information by default after no more than 18 months when users first opt into the settings. Users may also choose their own automatic-deletion periods. The agreement calls for dismissal of the action with prejudice and includes a release covering claims based on the same factual allegations during the class period.

Final Approval

The court found that the requirements for maintaining the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were met. It found that common legal and factual questions predominated, a class action was superior to individual lawsuits, and the notice plan provided adequate notice. The notice efforts reached an estimated 80% of the potential class and generated more than 826 million impressions. The court received three objections and nine requests for exclusion.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. It concluded that direct distribution was impractical because the estimated individual recovery would be no more than 25 cents before deductions, and distributing money even to a portion of the class would create substantial administrative costs. The court also found that the cy pres recipients had a substantial connection to the class’s data-privacy interests and that the settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations without evidence of conflicts or collusion.

The court overruled the objections challenging cy pres distributions, the selected recipients, alleged compelled speech, and the adequacy of class representation. It also overruled the objection to attorney fees, reasoning that the settlement’s cy pres component did not require reducing the fee award and that the agreement also provided meaningful injunctive relief.

Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards

The court approved $18.6 million in attorney fees, equal to 30% of the $62 million settlement fund. As a cross-check, the court considered counsel’s lodestar—the reasonable hours multiplied by reasonable hourly rates—which was calculated as $12,960,632 and increased by a 1.4 multiplier to approximately $18.6 million. The court also approved $151,756.23 in litigation expenses and service awards of $5,000 for each of the three class representatives.

Disposition

The Motion for Final Approval was GRANTED. The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs was GRANTED. The order constituted a final judgment for purposes of Rule 58, while the court retained jurisdiction over matters concerning interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation, and enforcement of the order and settlement agreement.