US Supreme Court Finally Takes a 'Cy Pres' Case, and This One Involves Google
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., writing in a 2013 case, said cy pres relief raised "fundamental concerns." The Google settlement involved funds distributed to third parties, with no compensation to the class.
April 30, 2018 at 10:00 AM
3 minute read
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said it will review Google Inc.'s $8.5 million settlement of a class action in which $5.3 million of the funds went to third parties and none to members of the class.
The justices will hear arguments next fall in the case Frank v. Gaos, a so-called “cy pres-only” settlement in which Google settled claims that the company illegally shared the search queries of its users. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in August affirmed the district court's approval of the settlement and the trial judge's finding that the settlement fund was not distributable to a class of an estimated 129 million Google users.
The Ninth Circuit panel said distributing the settlement money would result in each class member receiving about 4 cents, “a de minimus amount if ever there was one.”
Ted Frank, director of litigation and the Center for Class Action Fairness at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Melissa Ann Holyoak were objectors to the settlement in the district court and in the Ninth Circuit.
Frank, represented by Baker & Hostetler partner Andrew Grossman, appealed the appellate court decision to the Supreme Court. In the petition, Grossman noted that Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., writing in a 2013 case, said cy pres relief raised “fundamental concerns.” The justices had passed up recent opportunities to take a cy pres case.
Frank, commenting in a statement on the grant of review, said: “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court's review will result in a standard forbidding attorneys from misusing class action settlements to selfishly put themselves and third parties ahead of their clients.”
Google, represented by Mayer Brown partner Donald Falk, had opposed review of the cy pres settlement.
Falk argued that all of the circuit courts agreed with the Ninth that “a cy pres-only settlement is appropriate in the rare circumstance where direct distribution to class members is infeasible, and all insist on a close nexus between the cy pres remedy and the interests of settling class members.”
Kassra Nassiri of San Francisco's Nassiri & Jung represents three named plaintiffs in the class action. They also opposed high court review.
The Google settlement directs the funds to be distributed proportionally to six recipients that are devoted to web privacy: Carnegie-Mellon University; World Privacy Forum; Chicago Kent College of Law Center for Information, Society, and Policy; Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society; Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University; and AARP Foundation.
The petition in Frank v. Gaos is posted below:
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All10th Circuit Raises 6th Amendment Bar for Prosecutors' Attorney-Client Violations
Biden Administration Urges Justices to Pass on Potential Climate Blockbuster
Texas Bitcoin Mining Execs Sued for Alleged ‘Deception and Brazen Self-Dealing’
3 minute readCoinbase Justifies wBTC Delisting by Pointing to Justin Sun Connection
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Takes Up TikTok's Challenge to Upcoming Ban or Sale
- 2State High Court Bucks Trend Favoring Insurers, Sides With Restaurants Seeking COVID-19 Coverage
- 3Remote Proceedings: A Gift for the Holidays
- 4Contested Engineer Cleared to Testify in Defective Pistol Suit, Federal Judge Rules
- 5How I Made Partner: 'Don’t Be Scared to Be Ambitious,' Says Aya Eguchi of Morrison Foerster
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250