Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This multidistrict antitrust litigation concerns Google's Play Store practices. Attorneys for six individual consumer plaintiffs in Case No. 20-5671 sought attorneys' fees, expense reimbursement, and incentive awards from a $700 million settlement reached in the parallel States' case, Case No. 21-5227. The settlement allocated $630 million to a parens patriae fund for eligible consumers and $70 million to a non-parens States' monetary fund. Because the consumers' case was initially certified and later decertified, the requests were not governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h).
Counsel requested $85 million in fees, described as 13.5% of the $630 million consumer damages fund, supported by a claimed lodestar of $63,444,800.30 for over 98,200 hours and an implied 1.34 multiplier. They also sought $8.58 million in expenses, including about $6.3 million in expert fees, and $5,000 incentive awards for each of the six named plaintiffs. Their theory was the common fund doctrine: that attorneys who create, discover, increase, or preserve a fund benefiting others may recover reasonable fees from it.
The Court’s Holding
Judge James Donato denied the requests. On fees, the court held that a percentage-of-the-fund award was improper because consumer plaintiffs' counsel were not solely responsible for the $630 million fund; attorneys for every state and equivalent entity participated in the litigation leading to the settlement. The court also found the billing records 'utterly lacking in information demonstrating what work was done and for what purpose,' with opaque categories such as 'pleadings/briefs/pretrial motions' that did not justify hours reasonably expended.
The court added that the consumers' results were 'not particularly impressive' because class certification was denied after their expert relied on fundamentally inadmissible methods, and that the heavy lifting on Google's liability and remedy was done by Epic in its separate case. It questioned whether work directly benefiting Epic should be paid from the parens patriae fund. The court nevertheless gave consumer attorneys a final opportunity to file an amended fees request by November 13, 2026, with detailed records separating hours for the unsuccessful class certification and work not fairly contributing to the States' settlement, and it invited counsel to consider voluntarily reducing the lodestar and to omit marketing materials.
The $8.58 million expense request was denied for the same lack of detail but may be renewed consistently with the order. The $5,000-per-plaintiff incentive awards were denied outright: this was not a class action, counsel cited no authority permitting such awards under the common fund doctrine or 15 U.S.C. § 15c, and the individual plaintiffs provided no declarations explaining why awards massively exceeding other claimants' recoveries were warranted.
Key Takeaways
- Attorneys seeking fees from a common fund must submit detailed billing records showing the specific work performed and its connection to creating or preserving the fund.
- When many state and private attorneys contribute to a settlement, individual counsel cannot obtain a percentage-of-the-fund award unless the fund was brought about solely through their efforts.
- Hours tied to an unsuccessful class certification or to work primarily benefiting another plaintiff's case may not be charged to the parens patriae consumer fund.
- The November 13, 2026 renewal deadline covers fees and expenses only; incentive awards were denied and were not made renewable.
- Courts acting as fiduciaries for fund beneficiaries must scrutinize fee requests with 'jealous regard' for the rights of the consumers who will receive the funds.
Why It Matters
The order shows heightened judicial scrutiny of fee requests in multidistrict antitrust litigation where multiple plaintiff groups and government entities contribute to a global settlement. Even after a substantial monetary recovery, a court will not approve fees without detailed documentation tying the requested hours to the fund from which payment is sought.
It also illustrates the fiduciary tension between compensating counsel and protecting consumer settlement funds. By requiring segregation of unsuccessful class-certification work and Epic-benefiting work, and by denying incentive awards absent specific justification, the court kept the parens patriae fund focused on the consumers it was created to compensate.