In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation

Case # 10-cv-04809
Case Name In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. CA
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Google "intentionally, systematically, and repeatedly" divulged contents of user search queries to third parties (Complaint, page 1). This information potentially was usable to identify the user. Google did so without the knowledge or consent of the users, presenting a clear violation of privacy.

Final Approval Date 04/02/2015
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All objections were found to be without merit.
  3. Objectors Theodore Frank and Melissa Holyoak appealed the Final Approval.
  4. The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the District Court ruling.
    • All three justices agreed that the "cy pres only" nature of the settlement was appropriate and that the attorneys' fees were properly calculated.
    • Judge Wallace dissented in part, arguing that there was not enough scrutiny of the cy pres recipients, given the affiliations between the recipients and class counsel.
  5. Objector-Appellants Frank and Holyoak petitioned for a rehearing, which was denied.
  6. Objector-Appellants Frank and Holyoak filed petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court on January 3. 2018.
  7. The Supreme Court granted the petition on April 30, 2018.
    • The case is styled "Frank v. Gaos".
Dismissal of Last Appeal ongoing
Attachments Second Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval.pdf
Fairness Hearing Transcript.pdf
Final Approval.pdf
Final Judgement.pdf
Docket Report.pdf
Appellate Decision.pdf
Supreme Court Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Cameron Jan

Objectors Cameron Jan
Signers Joseph Darrell Palmer
Attorneys Joseph Darrell Palmer
Summary
  1. Notice was inadequate because it was not sent individually to class members.
  2. The nationwide notice plan cannot effectively reach class members. 2, Settlement does not require Google to change its business practices.
  3. Any injunctive relief is illusory.
  4. The settlement fund is inadequate, when viewed in comparison with Google revenues.
  5. Cy pres awards are improper, in that they direct funds away from the class and towards institutions that have a relationship with the attorneys of record.
  6. Class counsel did not earn their fees.
  7. Class representatives should not be compensated with cash when the class is not.
Attachments Objection of Cameron Jan.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of David Weiner

Objectors David Weiner
Signers Michael F. Creamer
Attorneys Michael F. Creamer
Summary
  1. Cy pres relief provides no benefit to the class.
  2. Notice is inadequate.
  3. Does not inform class members of the potential damages if the case went to trial.
  4. Does not adequately explain the harms and benefits to the class.
  5. Opt-out deadline was unreasonably short.
  6. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  7. Release is overbroad and unfairly exposes the class to risk.
Attachments Objection of David Weiner.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Kim Morrison

Objectors Kim Morrison
Signers Matthew Kurilich
Attorneys Matthew Kurilich
Summary
  1. Notice plan was overly expensive and ineffective.
  2. Settlement provides no benefit to the class.
  3. National authorities may not be aware of the settlement.
  4. Class representative awards are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Kim Morrison.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Theodore H. Frank, Melissa Holyoak

Objectors Theodore H. Frank
Melissa Holyoak
Signers Theodore H. Frank
Attorneys Theodore H. Frank
Adam E. Schulman
Summary
  1. Cy pres awards are improper, in that they are directed to recipients with prior relationships to attorneys of record.
  2. These funds could be directed to class members instead.
  3. Notice is inadequate because it does not provide direct notice.
  4. Opt out and objection procedures are burdensome, since they require paper mail submissions.
  5. This dispute should have been settled in a manner other than a class action lawsuit.
Attachments Objection of Ted Frank and Melissa Holyoak.pdf
Appeal of Objection of Ted Frank and Melissa Holyoak.pdf
Schulman Appearance for Objector-Appellants Frank and Holyoak.pdf
Opening Brief of Objector-Appellants Frank and Holyoak.pdf
Frank and Holyoak Petition of Appellate Rehearing.pdf
Order Denying Appellate Rehearing.pdf
Frank Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated