Judge Koh Nixes $30M Attorney Fee Award in Approving Yahoo Data Breach Settlement
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said that she is "convinced that the size of the settlement fund is largely a function of the size of the settlement class, and 'not entirely attributable to class counsel's skill'" in an order Tuesday granting final approval of a class action settlement over Yahoo data breaches.
July 21, 2020 at 08:27 PM
3 minute read
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California (Photo: ALM)
A federal judge has granted final approval in a $117.5 million class action settlement over Yahoo Inc.'s data breaches, but found that class counsel's $30 million fee request was too high.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California issued the order Tuesday in the litigation dating back to 2016.
The settlement class encompasses roughly 194 million people whose personal information might have been compromised through their Yahoo accounts in several data breaches over the course of five years. The average payout per class member comes out to about 60 cents, according to the ruling.
Koh disagreed with plaintiffs attorneys that the percentage-of-recovery method is the best way to determine attorney fees in the case. "Instead, having overseen this case for four years, the court finds that justice would be best served by applying the lodestar method—i.e., tying the fee awards for class counsel to the actual hours they reasonably expended on this litigation and then selecting a multiplier," she wrote.
Koh compared the per-capita recovery for class members in the settlement with the $1.46 earned per class member in the Anthem data breach litigation, which she also oversaw. "Here, by contrast, the per-capita recovery is roughly $0.60 per settlement class member," she said. "In light of this disparity, the court is therefore convinced that the size of the settlement fund is largely a function of the size of the settlement class, and 'not entirely attributable to class counsel's skill.'"
As part of the settlement, Yahoo will also funnel $66 million per year into its information security budget until 2022, which is four times more that it spent on average from 2013 to 2016, according to the ruling. The company has also agreed to hire 200 full-time information security employees through 2022, compared with the 48 it employed the year the lawsuit was filed.
"These non-monetary forms of relief benefit millions of settlement class members, including those who do not submit a claim form," Koh wrote. "The court finds that this nonmonetary relief weighs in favor of final approval."
The ruling was not the first time Koh voiced concerns about attorney fees in the case. In June, Koh asked plaintiffs lawyers to provide more billing details, saying that she would not award attorney fees without getting one document laying out the total number of billers by firm and position.
Read more: In $117.5M Yahoo Data Breach Settlement, Judge Koh Has More Questions
Judge Hammers Plaintiffs Counsel, Rejects Yahoo Breach Settlement
Yahoo Agrees to Pay $85M to Settle Consumer Data Breach Class Actions
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
© 2025 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 All![Google Makes Appeal to Overturn Jury Verdict Branding the Play Store as an Illegal Monopoly Google Makes Appeal to Overturn Jury Verdict Branding the Play Store as an Illegal Monopoly](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/therecorder/contrib/content/uploads/sites/403/2024/08/Google-Play-App-767x633.jpg)
Google Makes Appeal to Overturn Jury Verdict Branding the Play Store as an Illegal Monopoly
5 minute read![Free Microsoft Browser Extension Is Costing Content Creators, Class Action Claims Free Microsoft Browser Extension Is Costing Content Creators, Class Action Claims](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/397/2023/11/Microsoft-sign-767x633.jpg)
Free Microsoft Browser Extension Is Costing Content Creators, Class Action Claims
3 minute read![LinkedIn Accused of Sharing LinkedIn Learning Video Data With Meta LinkedIn Accused of Sharing LinkedIn Learning Video Data With Meta](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/therecorder/contrib/content/uploads/sites/403/2024/10/LinkedIn-sign-767x633.jpg)
![State Court Rejects Uber's Attempt to Move IP Suit to Latin America State Court Rejects Uber's Attempt to Move IP Suit to Latin America](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2024/02/Uber-Headquarters-0600-767x633.jpg)
Trending Stories
- 1SEC Sued for Failing to Reveal Records Involving Simpson Thacher Attorney
- 2Lawsuit accuses University of California of racial discrimination in admissions
- 3Data Breaches in UK Legal Sector Surge, According to ICO Data
- 4PayPal Faces New Round of Claims; This Time Alleging Its 'Honey' Browser Extension Cheated Consumers
- 5Fired NLRB Member Seeks Reinstatement, Challenges President's Removal Power
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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