Attorneys who settled a class action lawsuit with Google LLC over privacy issues related to Chrome’s “Incognito” mode are facing skepticism from a federal judge regarding their request for $217 million in attorneys’ fees. The settlement, reached in April, required Google to delete billions of data records and implement some privacy reforms, but did not include any monetary compensation for users.
During a hearing in Oakland federal court, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers expressed doubts about granting the plaintiffs’ attorneys the full fee award they requested. The attorneys, from firms including Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Susman Godfrey LLP, and Morgan & Morgan, based their request on 78,880 hours of work, totaling $62 million in standard billing rates. They argued that these fees should be multiplied by 3.5—a “lodestar multiplier” typically applied in successful class actions.
Judge Rogers indicated that she was unlikely to approve a multiplier above three, noting that while the case was not entirely successful, the outcome was still significant. She also expressed skepticism about Google’s counter-request to reduce the plaintiffs’ fees by 25% and criticized the company’s attorneys for suggesting that she review thousands of time sheet entries herself.
The lawsuit, filed in 2020, alleged that Google’s Incognito mode improperly retained user data despite promises of privacy. While the settlement included non-monetary relief, such as clarifying data collection practices and allowing users to block third-party cookies, it did not provide direct financial compensation to the plaintiffs. Google’s attorney, Andrew Schapiro, argued that the plaintiffs’ fees were inflated and that the case had only achieved partial success, warranting a lower fee multiplier.
David Boies, representing the plaintiffs, argued that the settlement provided substantial relief for Incognito mode users and that the fee request was justified given the complexity and scale of the case. The judge’s decision on the final fee award is pending, with the case continuing to attract attention as a significant legal challenge to Google’s privacy practices.
