A federal judge in California has declined to approve an $85 million legal fee request from attorneys representing consumers in an antitrust dispute involving Alphabet’s Google, raising questions about whether their work justified such a substantial share of a $630 million settlement.
U.S. District Judge James Donato rejected the application in an Oct. 15 ruling, citing insufficient documentation of the attorneys’ work and uncertainty over their contribution to the settlement, according to a report published by Reuters on Oct. 16. The decision leaves open the possibility of a revised request supported by more detailed evidence.
The dispute centers on allegations that Google used restrictions on Android app distribution and charges for purchases made through its Play Store to impose excessive costs on consumers.
Google, which has denied wrongdoing, agreed in 2023 to a $700 million settlement comprising $630 million for consumer compensation and another $70 million allocated to a separate fund administered by states, Reuters reported.
Judge Questions Basis for Legal Fees
The attorneys sought approximately 13.5% of the consumer settlement fund, arguing that years of litigation and extensive legal work warranted the award.
According to Reuters, the legal team, led by Karma Giulianelli of Bartlit Beck and Hae Sung Nam of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, said in a December court filing that it had devoted nearly 100,000 hours to the litigation.
The lawyers maintained that their efforts played an important role in achieving the settlement and that the proposed payment was reasonable in light of the work involved.
Donato was unconvinced by the supporting records.
The judge found that the billing materials failed to adequately identify the services performed or establish how those activities advanced the litigation. Without greater specificity, the court could not determine whether the requested fees were justified.
The ruling also raised a broader question about how credit for the settlement should be distributed among the legal teams involved.
Attorneys representing all 50 states and other government entities participated in the proceedings that ultimately produced the agreement. Donato questioned whether the private consumer lawyers could claim sufficient responsibility for the outcome to support their proposed compensation, according to Reuters.
The distinction matters because the requested fees would be drawn from money designated to compensate consumers rather than paid separately by Google.
State Attorneys Played Central Role
The settlement resulted from extensive litigation involving both private plaintiffs and government authorities.
California, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee and Utah were among the leading states involved in negotiating the agreement, Reuters reported.
Those states did not endorse a particular amount of compensation for the private attorneys, although they also did not formally oppose the $85 million request.
We’d love to be your preferred source for news.
Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!
Read more: Google Defends Play Store Fees in £1 Billion UK Court Fight
The involvement of state attorneys became a significant consideration in Donato’s assessment of the fee application.
The judge’s ruling indicates that private lawyers seeking compensation from a settlement fund must establish a clear connection between their work and the financial recovery, particularly when multiple legal teams contributed to the result.
The court also noted shortcomings in the consumer plaintiffs’ earlier litigation efforts.
The consumer lawsuit had initially received class-action certification, but that status was subsequently withdrawn after Donato determined that the plaintiffs could not rely on important economic expert testimony supporting their case.
That setback further complicated the attorneys’ argument that their work warranted the requested payment.
Lawyers Given Opportunity to Revise Request
Although the court rejected the application, the decision does not permanently rule out compensation for the consumer attorneys.
Donato permitted the lawyers to submit a revised fee request with more comprehensive billing information, including documentation distinguishing work that contributed to the settlement from activities that did not.
Under the court’s order, an amended application may be filed by Nov. 13, 2026.
The ruling also denied a separate request for approximately $8.58 million in litigation expenses, including expert-related costs, because the supporting information was insufficient. The attorneys may renew that request with additional documentation.
Source: Reuters
Add as Preferred Source