Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, PRIVACY—9th Cir.: Final settlement approval upheld in Google location privacy class action, (Aug 27, 2026)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

The distribution of settlement funds to nonprofits was appropriate because a claims process would be too costly and each class member’s share of the settlement would be too small to be meaningful.

The federal court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed final approval of a settlement in a class action suit alleging that Google violated its users’ privacy rights by continuously tracking their location and storing that data even after users had switched off the “Location History” feature on their devices. The settlement provided injunctive changes to Google’s practices, in addition to a $62 million settlement fund that, after fees and costs, would distribute the remaining $42.64 million to 21 court-approved cy pres nonprofit organizations, rather than to class members. The panel rejected the Objectors’ challenges to the district court’s approval of the settlement agreement and found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that distribution to class members was not feasible given the de minimis per-person recovery, high administration costs, and difficulty in reliably identifying or verifying class members (In Re: Google Location History Litigation, No. 24-3387 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2026)).

Background. The consumers’ suit alleged, on behalf of a class of an estimated 247.7 million persons residing in the United States, that Google violated its users’ privacy rights by continuously tracking their location and storing that data even after users had switched off the “Location History” feature on their devices.

Initially, the named Plaintiffs individually sued Google. Their suits were consolidated into a putative class action asserting a violation of users’ privacy rights. Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement, and the district court preliminarily certified the class for settlement purposes only. The settlement class included “[a]ll natural persons residing in the United States who used [Apple and Android] mobile devices and whose location information was stored by Google while ‘Location History’ was disabled.” The class definition would include approximately 247.7 million persons, which is roughly three-quarters of the United States’ population.

The parties submitted a preliminary settlement agreement that provided first, without admitting any liability, Google had agreed to rectify its allegedly wrongful conduct and would refrain from similar conduct in the future. Second, the settlement provided that Google would pay $62 million into a settlement fund. The fund would pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses, service awards to the named class representatives, and other administrative costs associated with the settlement. The remainder of the settlement fund would be distributed to charitable organizations “with a track record of addressing privacy concerns on the Internet.”

Objectors to the settlement argued, among other things, that the cy pres provision was improper because it was feasible to directly distribute the $62 million settlement fund to class members through a claims process. The district court overruled the objections and granted final settlement approval based on its determination that the settlement agreement was fair, adequate, and reasonable.

The Objectors appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Analysis. The panel reviewed the approval of the settlement and the cy pres distribution for an abuse of discretion. The panel first concluded that the district court appropriately considered the enumerated factors under the revised Rule 23(e)(2). The panel determined that the district court assessed the “amount offered” in the settlement and concluded that “the monetary and injunctive relief is fair, adequate, and reasonable.” It further concluded that a “cy pres distribution [is] appropriate in this case” because the settlement fund is “non-distributable” under our precedents, where the “pro rata recovery per [c]lass [m]ember could be no more than twenty-five cents, assuming the [district court] awards no attorneys’ fees, service awards, or administration costs.” It gave a detailed and reasoned response to Objectors’ contentions regarding the availability of other methods of relief and found that distribution of the settlement funds through alternative methods would be infeasible. As such, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the above factors under the framework provided in Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec.

The court next detailed that the district court satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(e). The district court held a fairness hearing, weighed the objections, and considered the relevant Rule 23(e) factors in making its determination. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court did not improperly apply a broad presumption of settlement validity to the entirety of its analysis.

The court stressed Ninth Circuit precedent in which the court has “reject[ed] the suggestion that a district court may not approve a class-action settlement that provides monetary relief only in the form of cy pres payments to third parties.” The court here found that the district court considered the interests of all class members, not just the tiny number who filed objections and not just the tiny fraction of the class that might be expected to file financial claims. The Ninth Circuit also pointed to precedent, such as Lane v. Facebook, Inc. which have deemed a settlement fund non-distributable where “each class member’s recovery under a direct distribution would be de minimis.”

The Ninth Circuit also concluded that the district court correctly applied the substantial nexus test to determine that the cy pres recipient awards were appropriate as part of a settlement that was fair, adequate, and reasonable. The court agreed that here, the cy pres recipients had documented their commitment to advocate for the protection of data privacy, establishing a substantial nexus to the underlying interests of the class.

Finally, the court declined to address the Objector’s Article III challenge on appeal because the Objectors failed to raise this argument to the district court.

Dissent. Judge Forrest dissented, indicating that she would reverse the district court’s decision. The dissent would hold that the district court failed to adhere to important limitations on cy pres disbursement, noting that cy pres distribution is appropriate only when settlement funds are truly non-distributable to the absent class members, and the dissent indicated that had not been shown in this case.

The Case is No. 24-3387.

Judge: Clifton, R.

Attorneys: Michael Sobol (Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP) for Napoleon Patacsil. Benjamin W. Berkowitz (Keker, Van Nest & Peters, LLP) for Google LLC.

Companies: Google LLC

Cases: Privacy AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews