In re Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

Background

This antitrust case was brought against Google by app developers and was part of a related multidistrict litigation. The developer plaintiffs asked the court to give final approval to a proposed class settlement and also requested attorneys’ fees, expense reimbursement, and service awards for the named plaintiffs.

Settlement Class and Settlement Terms

The court confirmed certification of a settlement-only class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class consists of current or former U.S. developers who, during the specified period from August 17, 2016, through December 31, 2021, sold paid applications or in-app products, paid Google a service fee above 15% on at least one transaction, and earned between $0 and $2 million through Google Play in each calendar year from 2016 through 2021, subject to the order’s exclusions.

The court confirmed Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc., LittleHoots, LLC, Peekya App Services, Inc., and Scalisco LLC as class representatives and appointed Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Sperling & Slater, LLC, and Hausfeld LLP as class counsel. The court found that the class met the requirements for certification, including that the members were numerous and geographically dispersed, shared legal and factual questions, had representatives with typical claims, and would be adequately represented.

The settlement provides a $90 million non-reversionary cash fund. The money will be distributed in proportion to the service fees class members paid above the 15% level, with a minimum payment of $250, and no claim forms are required. The settlement also requires Google to maintain a 15% service fee on the first $1 million of developer earnings each year through at least May 25, 2025; make changes intended to improve app discoverability; allow apps downloaded from other Android app stores to update automatically for at least three years; revise its developer agreement concerning communications with users outside apps; and publish annual transparency reports for at least three years.

The court found that notice was the best practicable notice and that the settlement satisfied the applicable approval factors. The record showed arm’s-length negotiations, adequate class representatives and counsel, and adequate relief. The court noted that there were no objections and eight opt-out requests, and ordered those eight opt-outs excluded from the settlement.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Class counsel requested $26 million in attorneys’ fees. The court accepted counsel’s calculation of a $112 million quantifiable common fund, consisting of the $90 million cash fund plus a portion of the estimated value of the reduced service fee program. The court found the requested fee reasonable under the circumstances and approved a 1.41 multiplier applied to counsel’s documented lodestar of $18,469,866.75.

Twenty-five percent of the fee award, or $6.5 million, was held back pending a later post-distribution accounting. The court authorized $19.5 million for immediate disbursement from the common fund. The court also granted counsel’s request for reimbursement of $4,422,740.98 in documented litigation expenses.

Incentive Awards and Disposition

The named plaintiffs requested $10,000 service awards each. The court found that amount disproportionate to the awards received by other class members and unsupported by sufficient additional work. It therefore awarded $5,000 to each of Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc., LittleHoots, LLC, Peekya App Services, Inc., and Scalisco LLC.

The court ordered the remaining settlement funds distributed to class members as quickly as possible, required compliance with the settlement agreement and the district’s class-settlement procedures, and directed that judgment be entered and the case closed. Judge Donato issued the order.