The People of the State of California-v-eBay, Inc, 5:12-cv-05874

California Attorney General sued eBay alleging a 2006–2009 handshake no‑solicit/no‑hire agreement with Intuit that suppressed competition for employees and harmed wages, opportunities, and California’s economy.
Claims asserted: Sherman Act §1, California Cartwright Act, and California Unfair Competition Law; suit brought both on the State’s own behalf and parens patriae for affected California natural persons.
Parallel DOJ action against eBay was coordinated; State amended complaints several times and engaged in settlement negotiations mediated through the court’s ADR program.
Proposed settlement: eBay to pay $3.75 million non‑reversionary fund (of which $2.375 million is restitution to affected individuals), injunctive relief forbidding similar no‑hire agreements, cooperation obligations, $250,000 civil penalty, $675,000 attorneys’ fees, and remaining funds to cy pres.
Claims process yielded 4,880 valid claims (15.47% response); $1,342,800 will be distributed to claimants and $898,695 allocated for cy pres to six California organizations focused on tech workforce development.
Court concluded the notice was adequate, the settlement as a whole was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e), overruled two objections, and granted final approval.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of notice	State: Notice plan (mail, email, publication, web, call center) satisfied Rule 23 and Mullane standard	eBay: did not contest adequacy	Court: Notice plan was consistent with Rule 23 and properly implemented; approved
Fairness of monetary and injunctive relief	State: Settlement provides definite, prompt restitution ($2.375M to individuals), injunctive relief, penalties, fees; avoids risks/costs of protracted litigation	eBay: implicitly supported settlement; objectors argued payout low and Intuit absent	Court: Monetary recovery and other components (despite modest injunctive value) are fair, reasonable, and adequate; approves settlement
Sufficiency of discovery/negotiation process	State: Had adequate investigation and DOJ materials; negotiations (including ADR calls) were arms‑length	Objector: Settlement reached with limited mediation and limited discovery, producing low recovery	Court: State had sufficient information and used court ADR; process was adequate; gives weight to experienced counsel and governmental participant
Cy pres recipient selection	State: Proposed cy pres plan targets tech workforce development for underserved Californians and used neutral administrator	Objector: Did not significantly challenge cy pres choices	Court: Approved six cy pres recipients as tethered to lawsuit objectives and class interests

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard—settlement must be fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23).
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice must be the best practicable under the circumstances).
Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (standards for cy pres distributions: tethering to lawsuit objectives, class targeting, and reasonable certainty of benefit).
Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) (settlement approval entails delicate balancing of factors).
Churchill Vill., LLC v. General Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) (policy favoring settlement of class actions).
Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (court may presume parties negotiated within a reasonable settlement range).