A U.S. federal judge has awarded nearly $147 million in legal fees to attorneys who represented consumers in a major privacy class-action lawsuit against Google, after a jury found the company liable for secretly collecting app activity data from millions of users who had disabled a tracking setting. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg approved the fee request by Boies Schiller Flexner, Susman Godfrey and Morgan & Morgan, despite objections from some class members.
The attorneys secured a $425 million jury verdict against Google in the privacy case, which covered about 98 million users. The fee award of approximately $146.7 million represents roughly one-third of the total judgment, including interest that pushed the common fund above $440 million. Google has denied wrongdoing and plans to appeal the verdict, while Judge Seeborg separately rejected Google’s request to overturn the jury’s decision.
Google Privacy Case Leads To $147 Million Legal Fee Award
The legal-fee ruling follows a jury trial in which Google was found responsible for continuing to collect app activity data from users who had switched off a privacy setting designed to prevent such collection.
The case was brought on behalf of a massive class of users and became one of the largest privacy disputes against Google to reach a jury verdict.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers had requested billions of dollars in damages during the trial and said they devoted more than 49,670 hours to the litigation.
Google Privacy Lawsuit At A Glance
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Defendant | Google LLC / Alphabet |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California |
| Judge | Richard Seeborg |
| Class size | About 98 million users |
| Jury verdict | $425 million |
| Total judgment with interest | More than $440 million |
| Legal fees awarded | About $146.7 million |
| Law firms | Boies Schiller Flexner, Susman Godfrey, Morgan & Morgan |
| Hours reportedly worked | 49,670+ |
| Google position | Denies wrongdoing |
| Next step | Google plans to appeal |
The judge described the fee request as extraordinary but concluded that the scale and difficulty of the litigation justified the award.
What Was Google Accused Of?
The lawsuit centered on Google’s Web & App Activity privacy setting.
The plaintiffs alleged that Google told users that turning the setting off would prevent the company from collecting their activity across third-party applications.
According to the lawsuit, Google continued collecting app activity data even after users had disabled the setting.
A jury ultimately found Google liable for violating the privacy rights of the affected users.
How The Privacy Dispute Worked
User opens Google account settings
│
▼
Web & App Activity enabled
│
▼
User turns tracking OFF
│
▼
Google allegedly continues
collecting app activity data
│
▼
Privacy class action filed
│
▼
Jury finds Google liable
│
▼
$425 million verdict
The dispute therefore focused on the gap between what users were told the privacy control would do and what the plaintiffs alleged Google actually did.
Nearly 98 Million Users Were In The Class
The size of the class was a major factor in the case.
Approximately 98 million users were covered by the jury verdict, meaning the alleged privacy violation involved a very large number of people.
However, the size of the class also means the eventual recovery for individual users is relatively small.
Judge Seeborg specifically acknowledged the unusual economics of the case, noting that each class member would receive less than $5 while the lawyers would receive nearly $147 million.
Verdict Vs Legal Fees
| Measure | Amount |
|---|---|
| Jury damages | $425 million |
| Common fund including interest | >$440 million |
| Legal fees | ~$146.7 million |
| Approx. fee share of $440M fund | ~33.3% |
| Class members | ~98 million |
| Approx. gross average per class member at $425M | ~$4.34 |
| Approx. gross average per class member at $440M | ~$4.49 |
The per-person calculations are simple averages and do not represent the actual amount each claimant will receive.
Why Did The Judge Approve Such A Large Fee?
Judge Seeborg said the fee request was extraordinary but justified by the extraordinary nature of the case and the quality of the lawyers’ work.
The plaintiffs’ firms handled the litigation on a contingency basis, meaning they took on the risk of receiving little or no compensation if the case failed.
The attorneys also said they had spent more than 49,670 hours working on the case.
Veteran litigator David Boies, one of the attorneys involved, was reported to have a current billing rate of $2,730 per hour.
Factors Supporting The Fee Award
| Factor | Significance |
|---|---|
| Nearly six-year litigation | Long-running legal effort |
| 49,670+ hours | Extensive attorney time |
| Contingency basis | Lawyers carried litigation risk |
| $425M jury verdict | Major monetary recovery |
| Large class | About 98 million users |
| Complex privacy issues | Significant legal and technical questions |
| Google as defendant | Major corporate litigation |
| Trial success | Plaintiffs prevailed before a jury |
The judge concluded that the lawyers’ success justified substantial compensation despite the unusual size of the fee.
Some Class Members Objected
The fee request was not universally accepted by the class.
Some class members argued that the attorneys’ compensation was disproportionate compared with the amount individual users would receive.
The plaintiffs said only 269 class members formally objected to the fee request, which they viewed as limited given the size of the overall class.
The objections nevertheless highlighted a recurring tension in large class-action lawsuits: lawyers can receive substantial contingency fees even when individual class members receive relatively modest payments.
The Class-Action Economics
98 million users
│
▼
Individual damages are small
│
▼
Individual lawsuits are impractical
│
▼
Class action combines claims
│
▼
Large aggregate recovery
│
├── Compensation to class
└── Contingency fee to lawyers
The judge recognized that tension but said it was inherent in using class actions to address widespread alleged violations.
Google Still Denies Wrongdoing
Google has rejected the allegations and argued that the plaintiffs failed to establish that users were actually misled by Google’s disclosures.
The company argued that the plaintiffs did not provide survey evidence, expert testimony or other uniform evidence demonstrating that users relied on the privacy disclosures in the way alleged.
Google has indicated that it will appeal the jury verdict.
The latest fee decision therefore does not end the underlying litigation.
Judge Rejects Google’s Bid To Overturn Verdict
In a separate order issued on the same day, Seeborg denied Google’s request for a ruling that would effectively overturn the jury’s verdict.
The judge also rejected a request from the plaintiffs for a new trial on another part of the case.
That leaves the $425 million jury verdict standing for now, although Google’s planned appeal could change the final outcome.
Post-Trial Decisions
| Request | Court Decision |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs’ attorney fees | Approved at ~$146.7M |
| Google request to overturn verdict | Denied |
| Plaintiffs’ request for new trial | Denied |
| Google liability verdict | Remains in place |
| Google appeal | Planned |
The litigation could therefore continue through the appeals process.
The Case Could Have Broader Privacy Implications
The dispute is significant beyond the monetary award.
At its core, the case examines whether technology companies can be held responsible when actual data-collection practices allegedly differ from what users are told by privacy controls.
Modern digital services rely heavily on user permissions and privacy settings.
If users disable a particular tracking feature, they generally expect that action to have a meaningful effect.
The Google case demonstrates how those expectations can become the subject of major litigation when plaintiffs argue that a company’s technical practices do not match its disclosures.
Privacy Litigation Against Big Tech Is Expanding
The Google verdict comes amid a broader increase in privacy and technology litigation involving major digital platforms.
Companies including Google, Meta and other large technology firms face lawsuits alleging improper data collection, misleading privacy disclosures and insufficient protection of user information.
The scale of recent cases has also increased the financial stakes for both companies and law firms.
The latest Google fee award is therefore likely to attract attention from attorneys and privacy advocates assessing the economics of future class actions.
Another Google Privacy Case Recently Produced A Smaller Fee
The latest $146.7 million award should not be confused with another Google privacy case in which a federal judge recently reduced plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees to approximately $29 million.
That separate lawsuit concerned allegations that Google’s Android operating system collected cellular data without users’ consent.
The two cases involve different allegations and different procedural outcomes.
Recent Google Privacy Litigation
| Case | Main Issue | Legal Fee Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Web & App Activity case | App activity collected after privacy setting disabled | ~$146.7M |
| Android cellular-data case | Alleged collection of cellular data without consent | ~$29M |
| Google Assistant case | Alleged unintended recording | $68M settlement fund |
The comparison illustrates how courts can evaluate attorney compensation differently depending on the size of the recovery, settlement structure, work performed and results obtained.
Class Representatives Also Receive Incentive Awards
The court approved payments to the individuals who served as class representatives.
Two representatives who testified at trial received $50,000 each, while another representative who did not testify because of medical reasons received $35,000.
The payments were justified by the time, effort and personal involvement required to serve as representatives in a major class action.
The judge nevertheless noted that the $50,000 awards were significantly higher than awards he had previously granted.
Why The $147 Million Fee Matters
The award is notable because it represents about one-third of the common fund.
That percentage is important in class-action litigation because courts typically evaluate contingency fees against factors such as litigation risk, time spent, complexity, results achieved and the size of the recovery.
In this case, the lawyers successfully took Google to trial and obtained a substantial verdict after years of litigation.
Financial Breakdown
Total judgment
>$440 million including interest
│
├───────────────┐
▼ ▼
~$146.7M Remaining fund
Legal fees for class / costs
│
▼
~33.3% of common fund
The award is therefore substantial both in absolute dollars and as a proportion of the recovery.
What Happens Next?
Google’s planned appeal will be the key next step.
If the company succeeds in overturning or reducing the verdict, the ultimate economics of the case could change.
If the verdict survives, the fee award becomes an important example of the compensation that plaintiffs’ lawyers can receive for successfully litigating a large technology privacy case on a contingency basis.
The case could also influence future negotiations between Big Tech companies and privacy plaintiffs.
The Bigger Picture
The nearly $147 million legal-fee award underscores the enormous financial stakes of privacy litigation involving major technology companies. The underlying jury verdict found Google liable for continuing to collect app activity data from users who had disabled a tracking setting, covering roughly 98 million people and producing a $425 million damages award.
For the plaintiffs’ lawyers, the decision represents a major payoff after more than 49,670 hours of work and years of litigation risk. For class members, however, the economics are far less dramatic: Judge Seeborg noted that individual recoveries would be less than $5. The contrast highlights both the power and the limitations of class-action litigation, where combining millions of relatively small claims can create meaningful corporate accountability but does not necessarily produce large individual payouts.
Looking Ahead
Google’s planned appeal means the dispute is not necessarily over. The company continues to deny wrongdoing and has argued that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that users were actually misled by its privacy disclosures. The appellate process could ultimately affect both the $425 million verdict and the related fee award.
The case will also be watched as another test of how courts handle privacy claims involving large technology platforms. If the verdict and fee award survive, the decision could strengthen incentives for consumers and law firms to pursue similar cases when companies’ privacy controls or disclosures allegedly differ from their actual data practices. For Google and other technology companies, the financial and reputational consequences demonstrate why precise privacy disclosures and consistent implementation of user controls remain increasingly important.
Get the day’s top stories in your inbox
One concise email. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
