Attorneys representing a class of nearly 100 million Google users are poised to collect nearly $147 million in legal fees following a high-stakes courtroom battle over user tracking. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg signaled during a Thursday hearing that he would approve the substantial fee request, issuing his formal order the following day, as reported by Courthouse News.
The underlying litigation stems from a July 2020 lawsuit filed by lead plaintiff Anibal Rodriguez. The complaint alleged that Google continued collecting app activity data from users even after they explicitly turned off tracking features in their account settings.
The Verdict and the Common Fund
Last September, a federal jury found the tech giant liable for privacy violations, awarding a massive $425 million in compensatory damages to a class of over 100 million consumers. While plaintiffs initially sought billions of dollars in disgorgement and damages, the jury declined to find a violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, rejecting any additional statutory damages.
With accrued interest, the common recovery fund has now swelled to exceed $440 million.
Addressing Hundreds of Class Member Objections
The massive fee request did not pass without resistance. The court received roughly 300 objections from class members who questioned the fairness of lawyers taking such a large share while individual payouts remained comparatively small.
“We got 300 objections that came in, the bulk of which boil down to the perceived disproportion per recovery on a class member basis, which is a relatively small amount compared to the quite substantial recovery of the attorney’s request.”
Judge Richard Seeborg, U.S. District Judge
When Judge Seeborg asked why this disparity was not a barrier during the Thursday proceedings, prominent trial lawyer David Boies defended the request. Boies argued that while the optics of apportionment can appear problematic, it reflects the inherent reality of massive class litigation.
“The very nature of a class action is that you have individuals who had such a small amount at issue, they couldn’t afford to litigate individually to hold the defendant accountable. What a class action does is it does give some sort of monetary compensation to the class, but more importantly, it holds the defendant accountable.”
David Boies, Lead Plaintiffs’ Attorney
Beyond monetary relief, Boies emphasized that the trial victory secured vital injunctive relief, noting that Google subsequently modified its privacy disclosures to provide greater transparency regarding data collection practices.
High Billing Rates and Landmark Stakes
Court filings submitted in support of the fee application illuminated the staggering economics of elite consumer litigation, revealing some of the highest hourly billing rates practiced in the United States. The legal teams reported investing nearly 50,000 hours into the case without any outside funding sources, absorbing substantial financial and professional risks.
Lead attorney David Boies logged substantial time on the matter at standard hourly rates. Other prominent litigators command even higher figures, with William Carmody of Susman Godfrey billing $4,000 per hour, Shawn Rabin charging $2,500 per hour in other matters, and John Yanchunis leading Morgan & Morgan’s class action practice at a $2,400 hourly rate, as detailed by Reuters.
Lawyers argued in their filings that approving the full contingency award is essential to maintain market incentives for complex trials.
“An award of one-third of the common fund will encourage other lawyers to likewise pursue their cases through trial (and beyond) instead of accepting settlement offers that may shortchange the classes.”
Boies Schiller Flexner, Susman Godfrey, and Morgan & Morgan, Class Counsel
Judicial Approval and Unsettled Appeals Ahead
Judge Seeborg ultimately concluded that the fee request was fully justified by the exceptional work and high stakes involved in taking on Alphabet’s Google through a full trial verdict.
“It is an understandable, reasonable request that recognizes the very good work done by the plaintiff side. It is certainly going to be within the realm of what you requested.”
Judge Richard Seeborg, U.S. District Judge
The court also approved incentive awards for the class representatives, granting $50,000 each to the two representatives who testified at trial and $35,000 to a third who did not testify for medical reasons, acknowledging the intense personal scrutiny they endured during discovery.
While the fee dispute approaches a close, the underlying legal battle remains active. Google has consistently denied wrongdoing, maintained its intent to appeal the jury’s verdict, and unsuccessfully attempted to decertify the class and vacate the judgment following the trial.
