Re: Court-Ordered Notice of Class Action (fwd)

[robert <http://dummy.us.eu.org/robert>]

I would do a web search to find out what the expected pay-out would be to
see whether it's worth all the paperwork.

 > From: Noelle <noelle>
 > Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 07:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
 >
 >  > From: Google Web App Activity Lawsuit <http://www.e.epiqnotice.com/~rodriguezvgoogle>
 >  > Date: Sun, 31 May 2026 17:09:47 -0700
 >  > 
 >  >  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CA
 >  > 
 >  >  Notice to Class Members who had Google “Web & App Activity” control or 
 >  >  the “Supplemental Web & App Activity” sub-setting turned off or “
 >  >  paused” of Class Counsel’s Fee Application
 >  > 
 >  >  A federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a 
 >  >  lawyer.
 >  > 
 >  >  What is this notice about? On September 3, 2025, after a federal trial, the 
 >  >  jury concluded that Google unlawfully collected information from certain 
 >  >  users of smartphones and tablets who claimed they asked Google not to track 
 >  >  their activity on mobile apps. The jury awarded a verdict of over $425 
 >  >  million in damages to two certified Classes. The Court entered a judgment, 
 >  >  which requires Google to pay the Classes the amount of the jury’s verdict 
 >  >  plus interest. As of March 2, 2026, the verdict plus interest totals 
 >  >  $440,345,685.40. Interest continues to accrue on that amount. However, 
 >  >  Google has asked the Court to vacate the judgment, meaning disregard the 
 >  >  jury verdict. Google may also appeal the judgment. There is no money 
 >  >  available now, but Court rules require Class Counsel to make a formal 
 >  >  request for their fees (their “Fee Application”), should compensation 
 >  >  be awarded. This notice is to inform Class Members of the Fee Application 
 >  >  and their opportunity to object to it.
 >  >
 >  >  What was the lawsuit about? Three Google account holders (“Plaintiffs”) 
 >  >  filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Google LLC (“Google”) 
 >  >  unlawfully accessed their devices and data, including app activity data on 
 >  >  their mobile devices, even though the Google activity controls called Web & 
 >  >  App Activity (“WAA”) and/or a sub-setting concerning “Chrome history 
 >  >  and activity from sites, apps, and devices that use Google services,” 
 >  >  sometimes called supplemental Web & App Activity (“sWAA”) were turned 
 >  >  off or “paused.” Plaintiffs alleged Google unlawfully accessed their 
 >  >  mobile devices to collect, save, and use the data concerning their activity 
 >  >  on non-Google apps that have incorporated certain Google software code into 
 >  >  the apps. Plaintiffs have three legal claims: 1) invasion of privacy; 2) 
 >  >  intrusion upon seclusion (similar to invasion of privacy); and 3) violation 
 >  >  of the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”). The 
 >  >  jury ruled that Google is liable for invasion of privacy and intrusion upon 
 >  >  seclusion, but not for violation of the CDAFA.
 >  >
 >  >  You are receiving this Notice because Google's records indicate that you 
 >  >  may be a Class Member. You were previously sent notice of the Court’s 
 >  >  certification of the Classes in this lawsuit in the fall of 2024. This 
 >  >  Notice advises you of the jury verdict and judgment that were reached in 
 >  >  the lawsuit, Class Counsel’s Fee Application, your rights and options at 
 >  >  this time, and the deadline to exercise them.
 >  >
 >  >  Who is a Class Member? The Court certified two classes to assert claims for 
 >  >  invasion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion. These classes include the 
 >  >  following individuals:
 >  > 
 >  >  Class 1 (the Android Class): All “non-Enterprise” and “non-Unicorn” 
 >  >  individuals who, during the period beginning July 1, 2016 and continuing 
 >  >  through September 23, 2024, (a) had their “Web & App Activity” and/or � >  >  �supplemental Web & App Activity” setting turned off and (b) whose 
 >  >  activity on a non-Google-branded mobile app was still transmitted to Google,
 >  >  from (c) a mobile device running the Android operating system, because of 
 >  >  the Firebase Software Development Kit (“SDK”) and/or the Google Mobile 
 >  >  Ads SDK.
 >  >   
 >  >  Class 2 (the Non-Android Class): All “non-Enterprise” and “
 >  >  non-Unicorn” individuals who, during the period beginning July 1, 2016 
 >  >  and continuing through September 23, 2024, (a) had their “Web & App 
 >  >  Activity” and/or “supplemental Web & App Activity” setting turned off 
 >  >  and (b) whose activity on a non-Google-branded mobile app was still 
 >  >  transmitted to Google, from (c) a mobile device running a non-Android 
 >  >  operating system, because of the Firebase SDK and/or Google Mobile Ads SDK.
 >  > 
 >  >  “Enterprise individuals” refers to individuals who only have an “
 >  >  Enterprise” Google Account. An “Enterprise” Google Account is an 
 >  >  account managed by an administrator that is designed for end users within 
 >  >  an organization, such as businesses, non-profits, and schools. Individuals 
 >  >  who have an “Enterprise” Google Account are not part of the certified 
 >  >  Classes that claimed invasion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion 
 >  >  unless they also have another Google Account.
 >  >
 >  >  “Unicorn individuals” refers to individuals who only have a “Unicorn� >  >  � Google Account, which is also known as a “supervised Google Account for 
 >  >  users under age 13.” A “supervised Google account for users under age 
 >  >  13” is an account created for a minor when they are under the age of 13, 
 >  >  and which is created and supervised by a parent using Google Family Link. 
 >  >  Individuals who have a “Unicorn” Google Account are not part of the 
 >  >  certified Classes that claimed invasion of privacy and intrusion upon 
 >  >  seclusion unless they also have another Google Account.
 >  >
 >  >  What was the verdict? The jury found Google liable to Class Members who use 
 >  >  Android devices (“Class 1”) and to Class Members who use non-Android 
 >  >  devices (“Class 2”) for invasion of privacy and intrusion upon 
 >  >  seclusion. The jury awarded a total of $425,651,947, of which $247,154,157 
 >  >  is due to Class 1 (Android users) and $178,497,790 is due to Class 2 (
 >  >  non-Android users). These amounts will continue accruing interest as 
 >  >  required by law. The jury found Google not liable for violation of the 
 >  >  CDAFA. For more information about the verdict, you can visit the Case 
 >  >  Website and read the jury’s verdict and related motions filed by both 
 >  >  Google and the Plaintiffs.
 >  >
 >  >  Does the verdict mean money is available now? No money will be distributed 
 >  >  at this time. While the jury did award a verdict, Google has asked the 
 >  >  Court to vacate the judgment, meaning disregard the jury verdict. Google 
 >  >  also may appeal. Class Counsel will continue to pursue the lawsuit against 
 >  >  Google. If money or benefits become available at a later date, you will be 
 >  >  notified and given instructions on how to make a claim.
 >  >
 >  >  What is a Fee Application? In a class action lawsuit like this, the Court 
 >  >  decides the amount that Class Counsel will be paid for their work. When a 
 >  >  jury awards compensation with a verdict in a class action, the Court 
 >  >  requires that Class Counsel make a formal application for the fees Class 
 >  >  Counsel believes it should be paid for their work in the lawsuit. Class 
 >  >  Counsel must also request reimbursement for any costs and expenses incurred 
 >  >  in bringing the lawsuit (such as the cost of expert witnesses and for 
 >  >  providing notice to the Classes) and for service awards to the individual 
 >  >  plaintiffs who represented class members and took part in the lawsuit. 
 >  >
 >  >  Individual Class Members are given an opportunity to review Class Counsel’
 >  >  s fee application and object to any part of it. The Court considers Class 
 >  >  Counsel’s application and any objections, and the Court decides how much 
 >  >  Class Counsel will be paid, how much they will be reimbursed, and what 
 >  >  service awards will be granted to the class representatives.
 >  >
 >  >  What does the Fee Application Say? Class Counsel is requesting (1) 
 >  >  attorneys’ fees equal to 33% of the judgment, including both the jury’s 
 >  >  verdict award and interest, which continues to accrue until Google’s 
 >  >  challenges to the judgment are resolved; (2) $12,422,374.42 to reimburse 
 >  >  costs and expenses incurred by Class Counsel; and (3) a total of 
 >  >  $135,000.00 for service awards for the three class representatives. Class 
 >  >  Counsel’s Fee Application states their justification for each of these 
 >  >  requests. The Court must approve the Fee Application and may award less 
 >  >  than these amounts. You can review the Fee Application at the Case Website, 
 >  >  www.GoogleWebAppActivityLawsuit.com 
 >  >  by clicking here 
 >  >  or call 1-855-822-8821.
 >  >  You may also obtain information regarding the lawsuit on the Court docket 
 >  >  in this lawsuit, for a fee, through the Court’s Public Access to Court 
 >  >  Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov 
 >  >  , or by visiting the office of the Clerk of 
 >  >  the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
 >  >  Ca, Phillip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 450 
 >  >  Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 
 >  >  p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays.
 >  >  PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE 
 >  >  ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT. ALL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE NOTICE 
 >  >  ADMINISTRATOR OR CLASS COUNSEL.
 >  >   
 >  > 
 >  >  If http://dummy.us.eu.org/noelleg should not be subscribed or if you need to change 
 >  >  your subscription information for Rodriguez v Google LLC, please use this 
 >  >  preferences page 
 >  > 
 >  >  AM656 v.02