Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiffs Hari Kishore and Brett Walker sued Times Internet (UK) Ltd. in July 2023. They allege that Times Internet, which operates the Willow TV cricket streaming service, used the Meta Pixel on its website to send subscribers' data, including titles of videos viewed, to Meta Platforms, Inc. for targeted advertising without consent. Their amended complaint asserts claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) and California's Unfair Competition Law. These are allegations only; the order makes no liability finding. The court earlier ruled that Plaintiffs had not established personal jurisdiction but allowed jurisdictional discovery. Defendant then withdrew its jurisdictional arguments and, before its remaining arguments were decided, withdrew the motion to dismiss pending mediation. The parties settled after mediation with retired Judge Freda Wolfson, and the court preliminarily approved the settlement.
The class covers U.S. persons who subscribed to Willow TV and watched pre-recorded videos on willow.tv from July 20, 2021, through September 22, 2023, estimated at about 75,830 subscribers. Defendant will pay $850,000, non-reversionary, covering fees, costs, service awards and administration. Because Defendant has no subscriber mailing addresses, members had to submit claim forms; approved claimants share the net fund pro rata, and residual funds after a secondary distribution go to the Electronic Frontier Foundation as cy pres recipient. Defendant also removed the Meta Pixel with no present plans to reinstall it, added a desktop tracking pop-up, and stopped pre-checking the subscription consent box. Members who did not opt out release claims arising from the alleged facts during the class period, including a waiver of Civil Code section 1542.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Gilliam granted final approval. Nothing had changed since preliminary approval, so the court incorporated its Rule 23(a) and (b) analysis. Applying heightened scrutiny to a pre-certification settlement, it found no collusion concerns: the fund is non-reversionary, most of it goes to the class despite any clear-sailing provision, and the court independently reviewed fees. Notice was the best practicable: email reached 72,931 of 75,198 class members, with three reminders, a website, a toll-free line and CAFA notices. There were 1,717 valid claims (about 2.28%), no objections and three opt-outs. Relief was adequate given risks on personally identifiable information, knowing disclosure, consent, class certification, and due process limits on aggregated statutory damages of about $190 million (citing Wakefield v. ViSalus). Counsel's $20-per-subscriber valuation implied exposure near $1.5 million, so $850,000 is about 56%; recovery is about $11.30 per class member gross and $292.45 per claimant.
The court awarded 30% of the fund, $255,000, above the 25% benchmark, citing the results (higher than recent district VPPA settlements it cited), the injunctive changes, risk, skill, contingency, and a lodestar cross-check of $383,084 for over 450 hours through June 2026. It granted costs of $35,408.53. It granted service awards only in part, awarding $1,000 each instead of $7,500, because Plaintiffs were not deposed and did not attend mediation, and $7,500 exceeded 25 times the maximum claimant recovery.
The order is not itself a judgment. The parties must file a stipulated final judgment of two pages or less within seven days. Class counsel must file a Post-Distribution Accounting within 21 days after checks become stale or funds are fully paid, post it on the settlement website, and the court may hold a hearing. Ten percent of the fee is withheld until the accounting is filed.
Key Takeaways
- The $850,000 non-reversionary fund drew no objections and three opt-outs, and the court found the 2.28% claims rate was not caused by deficient notice.
- A 30% fee exceeded the 25% benchmark because of the strong per-claimant recovery compared with other district VPPA settlements, supported by a lodestar cross-check.
- Service awards were cut to $1,000 each because the plaintiffs' involvement was limited and $7,500 was grossly disproportionate to class recoveries.
- Ten percent of fees remain withheld pending the post-distribution accounting, and a stipulated judgment is still to be filed.
Why It Matters
The order shows a Northern District of California judge approving a VPPA pixel settlement while policing the fee and incentive terms: an above-benchmark fee was tied to results, while service awards were trimmed for proportionality. The court's reliance on due process limits on aggregated VPPA statutory damages supports valuing such claims well below theoretical maximums.
The ruling is a district court order, not binding precedent, and it resolves only the settled class claims. It makes no finding that Defendant violated the VPPA, and the final judgment, claims payment and accounting remain to come.