On April 17, a group of five state attorneys general (AG) and Google filed briefs defending the proposed $700 million settlement agreement reached in three antitrust suits[1] brought against Google.
The proposed parens patriae settlement, originally reached in December 2023, earmarks roughly $515 million to settle the claims of 127 million consumer class members, providing an average consumer award of $4.41. An additional $70 million of the settlement fund will be paid to the states. Under the terms of the proposed agreement, Google will be required to make several changes to its Play Store, which will make it easier for consumers to install Android apps from other app store interfaces. If accepted, the agreement will also release Google from a limited set of antitrust, unfair competition, or consumer protection claims, and common or equitable law claims for a seven-year period. Importantly, the limited release does not include any consumer claims arising out of a different factual predicate, nor does it apply to consumers who first purchased an app from Google Play or first made an in-app purchase through Google Play Billing after September 30, 2023 — even if they seek to bring a claim arising out of the same factual predicate.
In February, the proposed agreement was met with intense criticism by a Judge James Donato, a federal district court judge in the Northern District of California, who expressed concern over the agreement’s seven-year claim release period. In the hearing, Judge Donato stated, “I have to say that I find that seven-year part to be particularly concerning. I have never granted prospective relief. I don’t think that’s fair to the class.” He also expressed concerns about the adequacy of the sums individual consumers would receive if the deal was approved.
In response, both the state AGs and Google filed briefs in support of the proposed agreement. In their brief, the states touted the proposed settlement as “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” noting that the decision to release certain claims prospectively is “wholly consistent with binding precedent in th[e] circuit” and will not impact claims brought by consumers “arising out of a different factual predicate” or to those consumers who made Google Play purchases after September 2023. The state AGs’ brief also argued that the distribution plan was reasonable given the “relatively small spend on the Play Store” made by a majority of consumer class members. Google’s brief focused on the remedial provisions in the proposed settlement, which not only prohibit Google from reengaging in the conduct challenged by the lawsuits, but also require the company “to take affirmative steps” to address the alleged anticompetitive conduct.
If approved, the settlement agreement would resolve litigation that has been ongoing since 2021, which challenged Google’s practice of charging a 30% commission on Google Play Store purchases and accused the company of stifling competition by requiring consumers to use its Google Play billing platform.
[1] The three antitrust cases brought against Google are, In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., No. 3:21-md-2981 (N.D. Cal.); State of Utah el al. v. Google LLC et al., No. 3:21-cv-05227 (N.D. Cal.); and In re Google Play Consumer Antitrust Litig., No. 3:20-cv-05761 (N.D. Cal.).
