In re Google Location History Litigation

Docket number: 18-cv-05062-EJD (N.D. Cal.)

The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute represents three objectors challenging a proposed all cy pres settlement that pays $0 to the class but aims to reward class counsel with $18.6 million and distribute the remainder of the $62 million settlement to third-party organizations.

The underlying lawsuit alleges Google violated the privacy rights of its users by misinforming them that it was not tracking users locations when they turned off Google’s “Location History” feature in their account settings. The parties reached a $62 million settlement but claim that actually distributing those funds to class members–i.e., the Google users actually harmed according to the lawsuit–was infeasible. Instead, they propose giving the class nothing for the release of their claims to sue Google and distributing the cash proceeds effectively as grants to third-party advocacy groups through cy pres. Many of the proposed recipient groups have pre-existing relationships with either class counsel or Google.

Objecting on behalf of class member and HLLI attorney John Andren, and additional class members Matthew Lilley and Joseph St. John, HLLI argued that it was entirely feasible to distribute—and exhaust—the settlement funds through distributions to class members and thus resorting to cy pres distributions ab initio was unnecessary and improper. HLLI also argued all cy pres settlements are always unfair and thus barred as a matter of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Moreover, the very fact that class counsel sought a settlement which pays nothing to the class shows that they are not adequate representatives executing their fiduciary duty to the absent class members. HLLI also argued that distributing cash obtained in class members names to third-party organizations that may work towards causes at odds with the wishes of class members violates their First Amendments rights against compelled speech and forced association. HLLI pointed out that all of the fundamental concerns surrounding cy pres could be avoided by a settlement which instead sought to distribute the settlement fund to the class.

Lastly, HLLI also argued that even if the court does approve the settlement, an award of over $18 million in attorney’s fees to class counsel for obtaining a settlement that paid class members nothing is obscene and grossly misaligned with the results “achieved” for class members. Instead, the lawyers should receive nothing, just like the class.

On April 8, 2024, after the parties disclosed their proposal for distributing the settlement funds, HLLI filed a supplemental objection further arguing that cy pres recipients were wholly inappropriate and the cy pres settlement was not legally justified.

The Northern District of California held a fairness hearing on April 18, 2024, where it rejected Andren’s arguments. It approved the settlement on May 3, 2024.

Andren appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. HLLI filed its opening brief on September 13, 2024. He is supported by an amicus brief filed by 20 attorneys general.

Case Documents