TL;DR
- On August 26, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed approval of a class-action settlement involving allegations that Google continued storing users’ location information after they had disabled the “Location History” setting.
- The settlement class was estimated at approximately 247.7 million people in the United States.
- Google agreed, without admitting liability, to change the challenged practices and pay $62 million into a settlement fund.
- After attorney fees, litigation expenses, service awards, and administrative costs, approximately $42.64 million remained for distribution to 21 nonprofit organizations under the cy pres doctrine rather than through direct payments to class members.
- The Ninth Circuit majority held that direct distribution was infeasible because individual recoveries would be very small, administrative costs would be substantial, and the class could not reliably be identified for payment.
- Judge Danielle J. Forrest dissented, arguing that the record did not establish that direct distribution was truly infeasible and that class members should have been given an opportunity to submit claims.
The central dispute wasn’t whether the settlement was approved. Instead, it was whether more than $40 million obtained for a massive privacy class could properly be directed to organizations instead of first attempting payments to the people represented by the lawsuit.
Transparency Notice
This article is based on the August 26, 2026 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in In re: Google Location History Litigation, No. 24-3387, arising from the Northern District of California. The underlying plaintiffs alleged that Google tracked and stored location information even after users had disabled “Location History.”
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s final approval of the settlement. The privacy allegations were allegations made in the litigation, not a judicial finding that Google violated users’ privacy rights. The settlement expressly provided that Google would undertake the agreed changes without admitting liability.
The article also discusses a dissent by Judge Danielle J. Forrest. Her arguments are identified as the dissent’s position and are not holdings of the court.
A federal appeals court upheld a settlement arising from allegations that Google stored mobile-device location information after users had disabled Location History… while a dissent challenged how more than $40 million in settlement funds would reach the class.
The Facts
The case arose from consolidated lawsuits against Google LLC and related entities. The named plaintiffs alleged that Google represented to users that disabling the “Location History” setting on their mobile devices would prevent Google from creating and storing a record of their movements. They alleged that Google nevertheless continued to track and store location information while the setting was disabled.
After the individual suits were consolidated into a putative class action, the parties reached a settlement following mediation. The district court preliminarily certified the settlement class for settlement purposes only.
The class definition covered natural persons residing in the United States who used mobile devices and whose location information was stored by Google while “Location History” was disabled during the class period. The Ninth Circuit opinion described the class as approximately 247.7 million people—roughly three-quarters of the U.S. population.
The settlement contained two principal forms of relief. Google agreed to rectify the allegedly wrongful conduct and refrain from similar conduct in the future, while also paying $62 million into a settlement fund. Google did so without admitting liability.
The fund was used for plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses, service awards to the named class representatives, and other administrative costs. The remainder was directed to charitable organizations with a record of addressing privacy concerns on the internet. The district court ultimately awarded $18.6 million in attorney fees, $151,756.23 in litigation expenses, and $5,000 to each named class representative. The remaining $42.64 million was divided among 21 cy pres recipients.
How the Settlement Reached the Appeals Court
Named plaintiffs separately sued Google, alleging that location information was stored while “Location History” was disabled.
The individual cases were consolidated into a putative class action asserting violations of users’ privacy rights.
Following mediation, the parties agreed to injunctive relief and a $62 million settlement fund, with remaining funds designated for cy pres recipients.
The district court held a hearing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), considered objections, and approved the settlement.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s approval of the settlement. Judge Forrest dissented.
The Fight Over Cy Pres
The appeal focused heavily on cy pres, a doctrine used in some class-action settlements when funds cannot feasibly be distributed to individual class members. Instead of making direct payments, the court may direct funds to organizations whose work is sufficiently connected to the interests of the class.
Here, the objectors argued that the district court should have attempted to distribute the settlement money directly to class members through a claims process before sending the monetary relief to outside organizations.
The majority rejected that challenge. It emphasized that the estimated class was enormous and that dividing the $62 million fund among 247.7 million people would produce less than 25 cents per person even before fees, expenses, administrative costs, and service awards. The court also noted evidence presented by Google that its data-collection systems made it infeasible to identify the individuals who fit the class definition reliably.
The Ninth Circuit majority concluded that “a direct distribution to all class members was infeasible” under the circumstances presented in the case.
Patacsil v. Google LLC, No. 24-3387, Ninth Circuit opinion
The majority also rejected the proposition that Rule 23 necessarily bars a settlement in which all monetary relief goes to cy pres recipients. The court pointed to Ninth Circuit precedent approving cy pres-only monetary distributions in appropriate circumstances.
Why the Ninth Circuit Approved the Settlement
The majority’s reasoning rested on several related points under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and Ninth Circuit precedent.
1. The Rule 23 Review
The objectors argued that the district court failed to properly apply Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(ii), which requires consideration of the effectiveness of a proposed method of distributing relief to the class. The majority disagreed. It concluded that the district court had considered the required factors and had provided a reasoned response to objections concerning alternative forms of relief.
2. No Improper Presumption of Validity
The majority also rejected the argument that the district court improperly presumed the settlement was valid. According to the opinion, the district court conducted a fairness hearing, weighed objections, and considered the relevant Rule 23 factors before finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate.
3. Direct Payments Were Deemed Infeasible
The majority accepted the district court’s conclusion that a direct distribution was not feasible. The court pointed to the very small potential per-person recovery, the costs of administering a claims process, and the difficulty of reliably verifying who qualified as a class member.
4. The Recipients Had a Substantial Nexus
The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s “substantial nexus” test to the 21 proposed recipients. That test considers whether a proposed award addresses the objectives of the underlying action, targets the plaintiff class, and provides reasonable certainty that members of the class will benefit.
The district court found—and the Ninth Circuit agreed—that the recipients had documented commitments to protecting data privacy. The majority therefore concluded that the recipients had a substantial nexus to the interests underlying the lawsuit.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision turned on the administration of a massive class settlement and the legal framework governing cy pres—not on a judicial finding that the underlying privacy allegations were proven.
What the Dissent Said
Judge Danielle J. Forrest agreed with the majority on the forfeiture of the objectors’ Article III argument, but she would have reversed the settlement approval on the cy pres issue.
Her central argument was that cy pres should remain a “next best” mechanism, used only when direct distribution to absent class members is truly infeasible. In her view, the record did not establish that standard here.
The dissent distinguished this case from the Ninth Circuit’s earlier Google Street View litigation. In that matter, the court had found that self-identification would be speculative and meaningful forensic verification would be prohibitively costly and time-consuming. Judge Forrest reasoned that mobile-device users in this case could potentially know or determine whether their “Location History” setting had been active during the relevant period.
She also questioned the assumption that ordinary claims-administration costs justified bypassing direct distribution altogether. The dissent noted estimates of $1.9 million for a 1% claims rate, $4 million for a 3% claims rate, and $8.2 million for a 7% claims rate. Because the settlement fund remaining after fees and other expenses exceeded $40 million, she argued that those estimates did not establish that effective distribution was impossible.
Judge Forrest wrote that cy pres is justified when it is the “next best” choice and argued that courts should ensure direct distribution is truly infeasible before turning to it.
Judge Danielle J. Forrest, dissenting, Patacsil v. Google LLC
The dissent further argued that a low individual recovery, by itself, should not determine whether class members receive an opportunity to claim settlement funds. It pointed to other large class actions in which per-person recoveries were small and emphasized the distinction between a distribution that has been attempted and a distribution that has never been attempted.
The Money Question
The numbers illustrate why the cy pres dispute became the central issue on appeal. The original $62 million fund was not simply divided among the estimated class. Significant amounts were allocated to attorney fees, litigation expenses, service awards, and administration before the remaining $42.64 million went to the 21 approved recipients.
The majority viewed a universal direct payment as producing an amount of less than 25 cents per class member before those deductions. The objectors argued that a claims process could produce a substantially larger payment for the smaller percentage of class members who actually submitted claims.
The majority rejected that approach in part because the objectors had not supplied a reliable methodology for verifying individual claims. The court reasoned that self-identification without a workable verification method would be speculative and could result in payments to people who were not actually members of the settlement class.
Judge Forrest reached a different legal conclusion from the same record. Her dissent emphasized that ordinary claims-administration mechanisms (including claim administrators, auditing, sampling, fraud detection, follow-up notices, and other procedures) could potentially be used, and she objected to eliminating a direct claims process without first attempting one.
What the Government and Regulators Alleged or Requested
This appeal was not a government enforcement action. The Ninth Circuit opinion identifies the plaintiffs as private class representatives and the objectors as appellants. The record also shows that attorneys general from numerous states appeared as amici curiae in the appeal.
The opinion does not describe a government finding that Google violated privacy law in the underlying conduct. Instead, the operative allegations came from the private plaintiffs, who alleged that Google stored location information after users had disabled Location History.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision concerned whether the district court properly approved the settlement and its distribution mechanism. The majority affirmed that approval.
What a Legitimate Fix Looks Like
Editorial analysisThe court’s decision leaves an important practical question for future class settlements: when is a direct distribution genuinely infeasible, rather than merely expensive or administratively difficult?
Regulatory Track
- Require clear documentation of how a proposed claims process would identify and verify eligible class members before a court concludes that direct distribution is infeasible.
- Require transparent estimates of claims-administration costs at multiple plausible claims rates, rather than relying on a single assumed participation rate.
- Preserve a clear evidentiary record explaining why the proposed distribution method is effective for the affected population.
Legislative Track
- Clarify statutory or procedural standards governing when cy pres may replace, rather than follow, an attempt at direct class distribution.
- Require disclosure of the relationship between proposed cy pres recipients and the subject matter of the litigation.
- Establish consistent reporting requirements for the ultimate use of cy pres funds.
Corporate Governance Track
- Maintain auditable records that can help determine which users were affected when privacy-related controls are alleged to have operated differently from their stated function.
- Make privacy-setting behavior and data-retention practices sufficiently documented to permit meaningful oversight and, where appropriate, claims verification.
- Build settlement and remediation processes around measurable obligations rather than relying solely on broad future assurances.
These are editorial recommendations based on the distribution and verification issues discussed in the opinion. They are not requirements imposed by the Ninth Circuit in this case.
What Now?
The Ninth Circuit’s August 26, 2026 decision affirmed the district court’s approval of the settlement. The court did not reach the merits of the objectors’ Article III challenge because they had not raised that argument in the district court.
The opinion also leaves a broader legal question visible in the dissent: how demanding should courts be before declaring a settlement fund “non-distributable” and sending monetary relief to third-party organizations?
- The federal courts — Watch how later Ninth Circuit cases apply the substantial-nexus and feasibility principles discussed here.
- Class-action settlement administrators — Watch for the methods used to identify, verify, and compensate class members in large privacy settlements.
- Google and other technology companies — Watch how privacy-setting representations, location-data practices, and remediation commitments develop in subsequent proceedings.
- Cy pres recipients — Watch how organizations receiving settlement funds describe and document projects intended to benefit the affected privacy interests.
The source document for this investigation is attached below.
