In re Google Plus Profile Litigation

Background

The case concerned alleged exposure of Google+ users’ non-public profile information caused by software bugs that Google announced on October 8, 2018, and December 10, 2018. After the parties briefed dismissal and participated in mediation, they reached a settlement through what the court found were good-faith, arm’s-length negotiations assisted by mediator Randall W. Wulff.

The settlement class consisted of people residing within the United States who had a consumer Google+ account at some point between January 1, 2015, and April 2, 2019, and whose non-public profile information was exposed because of the announced software bugs. The court had previously approved the notice program and appointed Matt Matic, Zak Harris, Charles Olson, and Eileen M. Pinkowski as class representatives.

Settlement Approval

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a class action settlement that binds class members requires court approval after notice and a hearing. The court must determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and whether the class representatives and counsel adequately represented the class.

Google agreed to establish a non-reversionary $7,500,000 settlement fund. The fund covered notice-program costs, payments to settlement-class members, service awards for the class representatives, and class counsel’s attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. The court found that the class satisfied the requirements for certification for settlement purposes only, including numerosity, common issues, typical claims, and adequate representation. It also found no conflicts among the class members.

The court finally approved the settlement under Rule 23. It relied on the benefits to class members, the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defenses, the risks and expense of further litigation, the significant discovery and litigation already completed, class counsel’s experience, and the class’s response. Approximately 1,820,549 individuals submitted timely claim forms, while 761 objections were filed. The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, adequate, negotiated without collusion, and equitable among class members.

Notice, Exclusions, and Objections

The court found that the required notices under the Class Action Fairness Act had been provided and that the notice program reasonably informed class members about the case, settlement terms, objection rights, and the final-approval hearing. The court reviewed the requests for exclusion and excluded all individuals who had timely requested exclusion from the settlement and its relief, including its release.

The court overruled untimely objections and objections from people who acknowledged that they were not settlement-class members. It also overruled objections challenging the notice program, the court’s jurisdiction over a nationwide class, payment by PayPal or automated clearing house transfer, the absence of a valid objection basis, Google’s potential liability, the per-claimant settlement value, deterrent relief, service awards, and attorneys’ fees. For objectors requesting checks, the court directed the settlement administrator to provide payment by mailed check if sufficient information was available and the objector had submitted a settlement claim.

Service Awards, Fees, and Costs

The court awarded service awards of $1,500 each to Matt Matic, Zak Harris, Charles Olson, and Eileen M. Pinkowski. It found the awards reasonable based on their protection of the class’s interests, the benefits from the settlement, and their efforts in pursuing the case.

Class counsel requested a $1,875,000 award for attorneys’ fees and costs. The court approved the requested fee award, finding that it represented 25 percent of the monetary settlement value, which it identified as the Ninth Circuit benchmark, and finding no reason to depart from that benchmark. The court also awarded $69,558.23 in litigation costs, consisting of supported current and anticipated future expenses.

Other Provisions and Disposition

Because the claims response left no residual settlement payments, the court did not address any distribution to charitable or other residual-payment recipients. The settlement released the defined claims against Google and the other released parties as of the settlement’s effective date. The order stated that the settlement and judgment were not admissions or evidence of Google’s or the released parties’ liability, wrongdoing, or fault.

The court dismissed the action with prejudice and ordered that no fees or costs be awarded except as provided in the settlement and the order. It retained continuing jurisdiction over matters involving the settlement’s modification, interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation, and enforcement, as well as over the parties, class counsel, and settlement-class members for those purposes. The clerk was directed to enter final judgment under Rule 58.