High Court Debates Wisdom of $8.5M Google Data Privacy Deal

The Supreme Court debated the wisdom of directing Google’s $8.5 million data privacy settlement to charitable and academic organizations rather than to alleged victims (see 1805010051). During oral argument Wednesday in Frank v. Gaos (docket 17-961), Chief Justice John Roberts suggested Google could have awarded the money to organizations it hadn't contributed to in the past, alluding to criticisms from Ted Frank, litigation director for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which challenged the settlement. New Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked whether it would be better to have a lottery or a pro rata system to ensure an injured party benefits. Justice Samuel Alito’s questioning suggested the deal awards a lot of money to attorneys, the class-action members get nothing, and groups potentially partial to Google benefit. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested an indirect benefit outweighs what class members could have gotten. Frank told her each claiming class member “probably could have gotten between $5 and $10” with typical claims rates. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said of the settlement, “It seems like the system is working.” Google attorney Andrew Pincus said the question is whether the cost of distributing the money means the class gets essentially nothing, making an indirect benefit better.