A legal battle over attorneys’ fees has emerged as a central issue in a high-profile privacy lawsuit against Google, stemming from allegations that the tech giant secretly tracked millions of Americans’ internet browsing activity. After more than four years of litigation, the outcome hinges on whether the legal team representing the plaintiffs will be awarded $217 million in fees or a significantly lower sum.
At the heart of the dispute is a settlement agreement requiring Google’s parent company, Alphabet, to delete billions of user records and update its privacy disclosures for users who activate “incognito” or “private” browser settings. While the plaintiffs’ attorneys from Boies Schiller Flexner, Morgan & Morgan, and Susman Godfrey argue that their efforts justify the substantial fee, Google contends that the request is excessive, given that the settlement includes no direct monetary compensation for consumers.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, presiding over the case in California, is set to rule on the fee request soon. Google has urged the court to cap the attorneys’ fees at $40 million, accusing the lawyers of seeking an undue windfall. The company denies any violation of privacy laws and has criticized the legal team for settling the case without securing damages for consumers after their attempt to certify the lawsuit as a class action failed.
Following a recent hearing, Google issued a statement calling the lawyers’ fee bid “an attempt to generate news and enrich themselves,” characterizing the settlement as one that benefits consumers in theory but results in no financial payout.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys, however, argue that the settlement’s privacy reforms provide a significant benefit, estimating their value to consumers at between $3 billion and $6 billion. They claim to have invested 78,880 hours—amounting to $62.4 million in lawyer time—and insist that their contribution justifies an award three times that amount.
Representatives from Boies Schiller Flexner and Susman Godfrey declined to comment, while Morgan & Morgan did not immediately respond to requests for a statement. Google’s legal team, led by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, also declined to comment beyond their public statements.
Class action settlements without direct monetary compensation for plaintiffs are not uncommon. Experts note that fee awards in such cases often depend on courts’ assessments of the broader benefits conferred by the settlement. University of Michigan law professor Adam Pritchard remarked that courts are often left to estimate the value of such settlements without clear damages, making the fee determination process largely subjective.
Judge Rogers has yet to announce when she will issue her decision on the fee award. However, during the hearing, she questioned the plaintiffs’ billing records, describing some of their fees—such as $667 per hour for document review—as “excessive.” Rogers also remarked that while the plaintiffs did not fully succeed in their objectives, the settlement they achieved was “not insignificant.”
Boies Schiller chairman David Boies, defending the fee request, highlighted the difficulty of the case and criticized Google’s focus on plaintiffs’ lawyers working 12-hour days, arguing that such workloads are common for corporate defense attorneys. Boies Schiller’s portion of the requested $217 million would amount to approximately $73 million, according to a Reuters analysis.
This case comes during a highly profitable year for Boies Schiller, which was also part of the legal team awarded $667 million in fees from a $2.67 billion civil antitrust settlement with the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.
In a related case also overseen by Judge Rogers, plaintiffs’ attorneys were awarded reduced fees from a $490 million settlement with Apple. The lawsuit accused Apple CEO Tim Cook of defrauding shareholders by concealing a decline in iPhone demand in China. Rogers deemed the original fee request of $122.5 million “extraordinarily high” and reduced it to $107.8 million, or 22% of the settlement.
Other recent legal fee rulings include a $927,000 award to Office Depot in a failed copyright lawsuit after the court rejected the company’s bid for more than $2 million in fees. Additionally, a federal judge in New York awarded $102 million to Quinn Emanuel and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll for their work in a $580 million settlement involving claims that major banks colluded to suppress competition in the stock lending market.
Judge Rogers’ impending ruling in the Google privacy case will determine whether the plaintiffs’ lawyers secure the full $217 million they are seeking or face a significant reduction in their compensation for the years-long litigation effort.