Judge Seeborg: Google Privacy Attorney Fees of $146 Million 'Reasonable'

• U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg indicated support for a "substantial award" of attorney fees in a Google privacy class action.
• Plaintiff's counsel is seeking over $146 million in fees and $12 million in costs from a common fund exceeding $440 million.
• A jury found Google violated user privacy by collecting app data despite opt-outs, awarding over $425 million in damages to nearly 100 million class members.
• Attorneys justified the high fees by citing the case's complexity, the significant injunctive relief secured, and the nature of class actions.
• The judge praised the litigation but expressed reservations about proposed $50,000 awards for class representatives.

This judicial stance highlights a potential precedent for approving considerable attorney fees in large-scale privacy class actions, even when individual class member recoveries might appear modest.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg recently signaled his willingness to approve a significant attorney fee award in a high-profile privacy class action against Google. While declining to issue a final ruling, Judge Seeborg, an appointee of Barack Obama, indicated that the request for over $146 million in legal fees and an additional $12 million in litigation costs was "not out of sight" and represented "understandable, reasonable" compensation for the plaintiff's legal team. This substantial sum, sought by counsel for nearly 100 million class members, represents approximately one-third of the common fund, which has grown to exceed $440 million due to accrued interest.

The judge commended the plaintiff's attorneys for their "very good work" in the complex litigation, suggesting the final approved amount would fall within the range of the $174 million initially sought by counsel. This judicial stance highlights a potential precedent for approving considerable attorney fees in large-scale privacy class actions, even when individual class member recoveries might appear modest. The case, which has been described by Judge Seeborg as "extremely well litigated," involved substantial risk for the plaintiffs' side in challenging a tech giant like Google.

The underlying lawsuit, initiated by lead plaintiff Anibal Rodriguez in July 2020, accused Google of continuing to collect app data from users even after they had explicitly disabled tracking features. This alleged practice formed the core of the class action, which sought to hold the technology company accountable for its data collection methods. A jury trial held last September ultimately found Google liable, concluding that the company had indeed violated users' privacy by persisting in data collection despite opt-out instructions.

Following the verdict, the jury awarded over $425 million in compensatory damages to the class of more than 100 million users. However, the jury did not find Google in violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, thereby declining to award any additional damages under that specific statute. This outcome established a significant monetary recovery for the class, setting the stage for the subsequent attorney fee discussions.

During the recent hearing, Judge Seeborg addressed concerns stemming from approximately 300 objections filed by class members, primarily centered on the perceived disparity between the high attorney fee request and the relatively small individual recovery for each class member. David Boies of Boies Schiller and Flexner, representing the plaintiffs, acknowledged the "problematic optics" but defended the request by explaining the fundamental nature of class action litigation. He argued that such lawsuits enable individuals with small claims, who could not afford to litigate independently, to collectively hold powerful defendants accountable.

Boies emphasized that beyond monetary compensation, the legal team secured crucial injunctive relief for the class. Following the jury's verdict, Google implemented changes to its privacy disclosures, making them more accurately reflect its data collection practices. This non-monetary outcome, Boies contended, provides a lasting benefit to class members by improving transparency and data privacy going forward, underscoring that the value of the litigation extends beyond direct financial payouts.

In addition to the substantial attorney fees, the plaintiffs' counsel also sought specific awards for the class representatives who spearheaded the litigation. The request included $50,000 each for two class representatives who testified at trial, and $35,000 for a third representative who was unable to testify due to medical reasons. Boies justified these amounts by highlighting the significant personal intrusion and "arduous process" the representatives endured, including extensive discovery efforts that delved into their private lives, all in service of the class.

While acknowledging the time and effort invested by the class representatives, Judge Seeborg expressed reservations about the proposed compensation, noting that the $50,000 figure was "a magnitude higher than any award I have given" in similar contexts. Despite this specific concern, the judge maintained his overall praise for the quality of the legal work from both sides, recognizing the substantial risks undertaken by the plaintiffs' counsel in pursuing the case against Google.

This development signals judicial willingness to approve substantial attorney fee awards in large-scale privacy class actions, even when individual class member recovery is small, particularly when significant injunctive relief is secured. Lawyers advising on class action litigation or privacy compliance should note that courts may value the broader impact of such cases (e.g., changes in corporate behavior) when assessing fee requests, potentially encouraging similar complex litigation.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News and Associated Press