Law360 (August 28, 2026, 7:12 PM EDT) -- A California federal judge Friday awarded plaintiffs' attorneys $146.8 million in fees after they secured a $425 million jury verdict against Google LLC in a privacy class action covering about 98 million people, calling the one-third fee award "extraordinary" but justified given their "exemplary performance."

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg acknowledged that the fee is unusually large but said it was justified because the case was unusually difficult and risky.

"This request is, without question, extraordinary, but it is warranted by the extraordinary nature of the case as well as by the exemplary performance of counsel," the judge stated in his order. "Plaintiffs' counsel undertook a great deal of risk in bringing this case on contingency, and they ably navigated the many hazards between filing the complaint and obtaining a favorable judgment."

The court also underscored that class counsel survived motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, litigated numerous discovery disputes and prevailed on a hotly contested class certification motion before trying the claims in front of a jury.

"This was no small feat. Cases of this complexity and magnitude almost never make it to a jury, and counsel's willingness to bear the risk of a total loss to maximize the recovery to the class places this in a special category," the judge stated.

Judge Seeborg also checked the fee against the amount of work the lawyers did: 49,670 hours on the case which calculates out to $56.8 million, based on their stated hourly rates. The judge said the 2.59 multiplier on that amount is reasonable, based on the "complexity of the case, the risk assumed by counsel, and the result."

The judge also said he wasn't concerned that too many lawyers worked on the case because it was litigated on contingency.

"If the verdict had been for Google, plaintiffs' counsel's loss would have been larger had they overstaffed the case," the judge said. "The substantial legal muscle involved here is a reflection of the complexity and gravity of the case, not of over-lawyering."

The court recognized it might seem disproportionate for the lawyers to receive a substantial sum when the 98 million class members are each expected to receive less than $5.

"That is, however, a consequence of the policy choice to use the class action device to remedy widespread torts," he said.

The court also approved $50,000 awards for each of the two class representatives who testified and $35,000 for the representative who did not testify, for a total of $135,000.

"These are large service awards, but they are commensurate with the burden of serving as a class representative in a case of this size and duration," the judge said. "All three class representatives sat for lengthy depositions, and the testimony of the two who were called as witnesses was instrumental in securing a favorable verdict."

The order followed on the heels of a Thursday court hearing at which the judge noted that there were close to 300 objections to the fee request, mostly concerned about how little the class members were receiving from the settlement.

The litigation stems from users' claims that Google unlawfully saved and used information about consumers' activities on third-party apps, even though they had opted out of tracking. They represented a nationwide class of device users who swiped on a "supplemental Web & App Activity" privacy option offered by Google related to third-party app use.

In September 2025, the jury awarded $425 million in compensatory damages, but found the plaintiffs had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that they were entitled to disgorgement of Google's profits related to the data. The jury also said the plaintiffs hadn't shown Google engaged in the conduct with "malice, oppression or fraud," a finding that would have supported punitive damages.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday about the award.

The users are represented by David Boies, Alexander Boies, Mark C. Mao, Beko Reblitz-Richardson, James W. Lee, Rossana Baeza, Alison L. Anderson, M. Logan Wright and Samantha Parrish of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Bill Carmody, Amanda K. Bonn, Shawn J. Rabin, Steven M. Shepard, Alexander P. Frawley, Ryan Sila and Xiaoming Wang of Susman Godfrey LLP, and John A. Yanchunis, Ryan J. McGee and Michael F. Ram of Morgan & Morgan PA.

Google is represented by Michael A. Attanasio, Benedict Y. Hur, Simona Agnolucci, Eduardo E. Santacana, Jonathan Patchen, Argemira Flórez, Naiara Toker, Harris Mateen, Thilini Chandrasekera, Isabella McKinley Corbo and Chelsea Hu of Cooley LLP.

The case is Rodriguez et al. v. Google LLC et al., case number 3:20-cv-04688, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Editing by Kristen Becker.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.