In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation
87 F. Supp. 3d 1122
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Consolidated internet privacy action against Google seeks final settlement approval and approval of attorney fees, costs, and named-plaintiff incentives.
- Plaintiffs allege Google disclosed user search queries via the referrer header, exposing personal information to third parties.
- Claims include violations of the Stored Communications Act, breach of contract and related contract theories, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief.
- The court previously preliminarily approved certification for settlement purposes and approved a notice plan.
- Cy pres distribution from the settlement fund to designated privacy organizations is proposed in lieu of full direct class payments.
- A small number of objections were filed and the court conducted a final fairness review balancing the Hanlon factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement class remains appropriate for final approval | Gaos supports class treatment for settlement | Google challenges ongoing need for class certification | The class remains certified for settlement purposes |
| Whether the notice plan complies with Rule 23 | Gaos maintains notice plan was properly implemented | Google likely contends adequacy of notice | Notice plan approved as consistent with Rule 23(c)(2)(B) |
| Whether the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable | Gaos argues settlement balanced risks and provided meaningful relief | Google argues relief is not the best possible | Settlement approved after balancing factors, including cy pres suitability and injunctive relief |
| Whether attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive awards are reasonable | Gaos seeks 25% of the fund plus costs | Google opposes excessive fee | Fees and costs approved as reasonable and benchmarks met |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (fairness and reasonableness standard for settlements; court deference to private agreement)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (S. Ct. 1950) (adequacy of notice in class actions; due process)
- Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (multifactor approach to settlement fairness; no formula required)
- Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) (extensive discretion in approving settlements)
- Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) (cy pres and settlement considerations; benefits to class)
- In re Zynga Privacy Litig., 750 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014) (rejected certain SCA theory; cy pres considerations)
- Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (cy pres with substantial nexus to class interests)
- Pac. Ents. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1995) (class action settlement framework and reasonableness)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (decertification risk and class action mechanics)