A $68 million class action settlement has been approved by the District Court for the Northern District of California to resolve allegations that Google’s voice-activated devices recorded and disclosed private conversations without users’ consent. The lawsuit, Kumandan v. Google LLC, No. 19-cv-04286-BLF, was filed in 2019 and involved several claims, including violations of the federal Wiretap Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law.
The lawsuit argued that Google’s own policies misled customers into believing their conversations remained private unless manually triggered. Users claimed recordings were sometimes sent to outside contractors, and devices could activate unexpectedly during events like shattered glass or smoke detectors. The legal battle hinged on whether Google’s Assistant technology improperly intercepted conversations beyond its stated activation parameters.
Settlement Details
The settlement established two classes: the Purchaser Settlement Class and the Privacy Settlement Class. The Purchaser Settlement Class includes all users who purchased a Google-made device between May 18, 2016, and the date of preliminary approval of the settlement. The Privacy Settlement Class includes all Google Assistant users and members of their households during the settlement period whose communications were recorded or otherwise obtained as a result of a False Accept, or whose communications were recorded or otherwise obtained and disclosed to a third-party review vendor.
To claim payouts, participants had to file online or by mail, verifying their identity and linking the affected Google account. Device purchasers additionally needed to provide serial numbers and proof of ownership. Estimates suggested buyers could receive between $18 and $56, while those affected by false recordings might get $2 to $10.
The Court determined that both settlement classes satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). The Court evaluated the settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which requires that class action settlements be fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court examined the adequacy of the $68 million recovery, particularly in light of the risks of continued litigation.
Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses
Class counsel requested $22,666,666.70 in attorneys’ fees, representing approximately one-third of the $68 million settlement fund, along with $1,021,738.40 in litigation expenses. The Court evaluated the request using the two methods recognized in the Ninth Circuit: the percentage-of-recovery method and the lodestar method. The Court ultimately approved the full $22,666,666.70 attorneys’ fee request, finding that an award representing one-third of the settlement fund was fair and reasonable.
The Court also approved the requested $1,021,738.40 in litigation expenses, which included expert and consultant fees, mediation expenses, electronic discovery costs, document hosting, court reporting, and other expenses incurred throughout the litigation.
The Court addressed objections concerning various aspects of the settlement and granted final approval of the settlement. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, particularly considering the uncertainty, expense, and delay associated with continued litigation. The settlement’s approval brings an end to the long-running lawsuit, which had been ongoing since 2019.
