| 
						U.S. top court jeopardizes Google settlement in internet 
						privacy case
		 Send a link to a friend 
		
		 [March 21, 2019]   
		By Andrew Chung 
 WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court on 
		Wednesday put in jeopardy an $8.5 million settlement Google made with 
		users to resolve a class action lawsuit accusing it of violating their 
		privacy by sharing users' search queries with other websites.
 
 The justices, in an unsigned opinion, threw out a ruling by the San 
		Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that had upheld the 
		settlement, directing it to take a fresh look at whether the plaintiffs 
		had the legal standing necessary to sue and whether they were even 
		harmed by the search engine operator.
 
 Google, part of Alphabet Inc., was accused in the lawsuit of violating a 
		1986 law governing the privacy of stored electronic communications.
 
 Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying the increasingly common type 
		of settlement at the heart of the case was "unfair and unreasonable" and 
		should not have been approved by the 9th Circuit.
 
		
		 
		
 These so-called "cy pres" (pronounced "see pray") settlements are used 
		in class action cases when it might be impractical to carve up low-value 
		individual damages among a large number of plaintiffs. In endorsing the 
		Google settlement in 2017, the 9th Circuit said each of the 129 million 
		U.S. Google users who theoretically could have claimed part of it would 
		have received "a paltry 4 cents in recovery."
 
 Proponents have said these settlements can put otherwise negligible 
		awards per person to good use by benefiting groups that work for the 
		public good or support underfunded entities. Critics have said they 
		encourage frivolous lawsuits and excessive fees going to plaintiffs' 
		lawyers.
 
 Google agreed in the settlement to disclose on its website how users' 
		search terms are shared but was not required to change its behavior. The 
		three main plaintiffs received $5,000 each for representing the class. 
		Their attorneys received about $2.1 million.
 
 
 
		
            [to top of second column] | 
            
			 
            
			The Google logo is pictured at the entrance to the Google offices in 
			London, Britain January 18, 2019. REUTERS/Hannah McKay 
            
			 
Under the settlement, much of the rest of the money would go to organizations or 
projects that promote internet privacy, including at Stanford University and 
AARP, a lobbying group for older Americans, but nothing to the millions of 
Google users who the plaintiffs were to have represented in the class action. 
A Google representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment on 
Wednesday.
 The settlement was challenged by attorneys including Ted Frank of the Hamilton 
Lincoln Law Institute, which advocates against what it considers abusive class 
action procedures.
 
Following the ruling, Frank said he expects the lower courts to again find that 
the plaintiffs may sue and that the issue will soon be back before the high 
court. "The decision simply delays the day of reckoning for this unfair 
practice," Frank said.
 The case began when a California resident named Paloma Gaos filed a proposed 
class action lawsuit in 2010 in San Jose federal court.
 
 The plaintiffs said that their privacy was violated when their search terms were 
disseminated by Google to other sites. One searched for her own name, another 
for financial and health data, and a third for information related to his 
divorce proceedings.
 
 The Supreme Court may soon get another opportunity to clarify what is needed for 
plaintiffs to achieve the legal standing necessary to sue. The justices are 
considering whether to hear a pending appeal by online shoe retailer Zappos, a 
subsidiary of Amazon.com Inc, over whether customers are entitled to sue over a 
2012 data breach.
 
 (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)
 
				 
			[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
				reserved.] Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.  
			Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |