In re Google Plus Profile Litigation, 5:18-cv-06164

Google announced software bugs on Oct. 8, 2018 and Dec. 10, 2018 that exposed non-public Google+ profile information of certain users.
Settlement Class: U.S. residents who had a consumer Google+ account between Jan. 1, 2015 and Apr. 2, 2019 and whose non-public profile information was exposed by those bugs.
Parties reached an arms-length mediated settlement and Google agreed to a non-reversionary $7,500,000 settlement fund to cover notice, payments to claimants, incentive awards, and attorneys’ fees/costs.
Court granted preliminary approval, implemented a notice program, and received ~1,820,549 timely claims and 761 objections (some untimely or from non-class members).
Court held final approval hearings, reviewed objections, and addressed awards: approved settlement as fair and reasonable, awarded $1,500 service awards to each of four class reps, and awarded $1,875,000 (25%) in attorneys’ fees plus $69,558.23 in costs.
Court dismissed the action with prejudice, approved releases for class members, found no residual funds (no cy pres), and retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

Issue	Plaintiffs' Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement and settlement-class certification are fair, reasonable, adequate	Settlement fairly compensates class given litigation risks, negotiated at arm’s length after mediation	Settlement resolves claims and is appropriate; Google did not oppose fees	Approved: Court found Rule 23(a)/(b) requirements met for settlement purposes and settlement fair, reasonable, adequate, non-collusive
Adequacy of notice and class response	Notice program satisfied due process; high claims rate shows adequate notice	Agreed notice program was proper	Approved: Notice program satisfied Rule 23 and CAFA requirements; ~1.82M claims received
Objections re: per-claimant value and objector standing	Plaintiffs: per-claimant valuation supported by expert range and litigation risks justify settlement	Some objectors argued low per-claimant value or lacked standing (no account, not U.S.)	Overruled: Court found valuation reasonable, many objections untimely or from non-class members; settlement benefits adequate
Attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards	Requested 25% of fund ($1,875,000) plus $69,558.23 costs; $1,500 service awards each	Google did not oppose fee request; some objected to size of fees/incentives	Granted: Fee award 25% of monetary settlement (benchmark), costs awarded, and $1,500 incentive payments to each named plaintiff granted

Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (standards for settlement-class certification and incentive awards)
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (settlement fairness inquiry and role of district court discretion)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (settlement-class certification concerns where class not litigated)
Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) (factors for evaluating class settlements)
In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (signs of collusion and review of attorney fee arrangements)
Rodriguez v. West Pub. Co., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (purpose and scrutiny of incentive awards)
Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Solutions, 715 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2013) (review of incentive awards and adequacy of class representatives)
Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) (benchmark percentage method for common-fund fee awards)
Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268 (9th Cir. 1989) (adjusting benchmark fee percentage for unusual circumstances)
Gould v. Alleco, Inc., 883 F.2d 281 (4th Cir. 1989) (only class members may object to class settlement)
United States v. State of Oregon, 913 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1990) (burden on objectors to prove assertions challenging settlement)
Van Vranken v. Atl. Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (discussion of fee percentages and approval of costs)