Google Assistant Class Action, Judge Approves $22.67 Million in Attorney Fees Despite Rejecting $3,000 Hourly Rate

On October 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of California granted final approval of Google’s $68 million Google Assistant privacy settlement and approved $22,666,666.70 in attorney fees for class counsel. That is the full one-third of the fund the lawyers requested, even though the judge called one attorney’s proposed $3,000 hourly rate “patently unreasonable.”

The case is In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation, No. 5:19-cv-04286-BLF. It resolves allegations that Google Assistant-enabled devices sometimes recorded and transmitted conversations when users had not intentionally activated the assistant. Google denied wrongdoing and settled without admitting liability.

The key development is that the judge cut certain billing rates used to check the lawyers’ work, but not the overall fee. The same order approved $1,021,738.40 in litigation expenses, cut four class representatives’ service awards from $10,000 to $5,000 each and overruled all seven objections.

Do the fees come out of the settlement money? The fee award equals 33.33% of the $68 million fund, and a percentage-of-the-fund award in a common-fund case is ordinarily paid from that fund, not by Google on top of it. That means the money spent on fees, expenses and service awards is not available to class members. Confirm exactly which costs the settlement agreement charges to the fund.

Sources: the October 13, 2026, court order (Document 584) and Reuters’ October 15, 2026, report.

Quick Facts: Google Assistant Privacy Settlement Attorney Fee Ruling

Case detail	Information
Case name	In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation
Case number	5:19-cv-04286-BLF
Court	U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division
Judge	Beth Labson Freeman
Defendant	Google LLC (Alphabet Inc. also involved in the litigation)
Settlement fund	$68,000,000
Attorney fees approved	$22,666,666.70 (33.33% of the fund)
Litigation expenses approved	$1,021,738.40
Class representative awards	$5,000 each for four representatives (requested $10,000 each)
Hours reported by class counsel	20,371.6
Highest disputed hourly rate	$3,000, requested for attorney David Scott
Rate the court used for the fee check	$1,600 per hour for the four lawyers whose rates were cut
Objections	Seven, all overruled
Final approval	October 13, 2026
Claim deadline	August 27, 2026 (passed)
Payment status	No payment date announced as of October 17, 2026

What Did Judge Freeman Say About the $3,000 Hourly Rate?

The judge refused to use David Scott’s proposed $3,000 hourly rate when evaluating the fee. Scott is a managing partner at Scott + Scott, one of the firms that represented the plaintiffs. His team argued the rates matched what comparable lawyers charge.

The court disagreed. The highest rate in the decisions the lawyers cited was $1,975 for partners or senior counsel, and the highest comparable rate the judge found in the Northern District of California was $1,545. Judge Freeman acknowledged that named partners can charge more and that rates rise over time, but called $3,000 “patently unreasonable.” She also noted that David Scott and Daryl Scott had billed mainly for later stages of the case, including strategy and settlement.

Which Lawyers’ Hourly Rates Did the Judge Reduce?

Attorney	Requested hourly rate	Rate used by the court
David Scott, Scott + Scott	$3,000	$1,600
Daryl Scott, Scott + Scott	$1,960	$1,600
Geoffrey Horn, Lowey Dannenberg	$1,795	$1,600
Vincent Briganti, Lowey Dannenberg	$1,795	$1,600

These changes lowered the lodestar by $217,800. The court did not order the lawyers to return $217,800. It adjusted the numbers used to test the fee request and then approved the percentage-based award in full. The reductions appear on pages 20–21 of the order.

Why Did the Lawyers Still Get the Full $22.67 Million?

The judge set the fee using the percentage-of-the-fund method and used the lodestar only as a cross-check. Class counsel asked for one-third of the fund, and the court found that reasonable after weighing four things.

• The result: The judge called the $68 million all-cash settlement an excellent result. The fund is non-reversionary, so unclaimed money does not go back to Google. It can be redistributed or, if further distribution is impractical, go to a court-approved cy pres recipient. Plaintiffs estimated payments of about $18 to $56 for purchaser-class members and about $2 to $10 for privacy-class members. These are estimates, not guarantees.
• The risk: The case began in July 2019 and ran more than seven years. Counsel worked on contingency and faced the possibility of no recovery.
• The work: The court found extensive discovery, motion practice, amended complaints and complex class certification and settlement issues. Class counsel reported 20,371.6 hours, which the judge found adequately documented and reasonable.
• The cross-check: Counsel’s lodestar before the rate cuts was $22,477,337.50. After the court’s $217,800 reduction, the $22.67 million fee was only slightly above the lodestar, a multiplier of roughly 1.0, and the judge found the cross-check did not change her view.

Dividing the fee by the reported hours gives a blended rate of about 1,113perhour(22,666,666.70 ÷ 20,371.6). That is my arithmetic, not a figure from the order, but it shows why a fee that dwarfs the $1,600 cap on any single lawyer’s rate can still look reasonable overall.

Related article: Hyron Andrews Dies at 31, Rugby Player Found Dead in Hotel Shower Before Champions Cup Match

How Do Federal Courts Review Attorney Fees in Class Action Settlements?

Several rules and cases frame this kind of ruling:

• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires court approval of a class settlement after a finding that it is fair, reasonable and adequate.
• Rule 23(h) lets the court award reasonable attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs authorized by law or the parties’ agreement.
• The common-fund doctrine, recognized in Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980), lets lawyers who create a fund for a class recover reasonable fees from it.
• The Ninth Circuit’s 25% benchmark for common-fund fees is a starting point, not a cap. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002), approved the percentage method with a lodestar cross-check, and In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation, 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011), requires courts to scrutinize fees for signs of self-dealing.
• Prevailing market rates govern the lodestar. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984), puts the burden on the fee applicant to show rates in line with the community, and Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008), applies the forum district’s rates.

How Much Did the Court Approve for Fees, Expenses and Service Awards?

Award	Amount approved
Attorney fees	$22,666,666.70
Litigation expenses	$1,021,738.40
Service award, Asif Kumandan	$5,000
Service award, Melissa Spurr	$5,000
Service award, Lourdes Galvan	$5,000
Service award, Eleeanna Galvan	$5,000
Total for fees, expenses and four service awards	$23,708,405.10

If all of these come out of the fund, as is typical, about $44.29 million of the $68 million would remain before notice and administration costs, which this total does not include. That is my calculation, and the actual net depends on what the settlement agreement charges to the fund.

The expenses cover more than six years of costs, including experts, mediation, electronic discovery, document hosting, notice, court reporting, filing and service, research and travel. The court found them documented, necessary and of the kind ordinarily billed to paying clients.

Why Did the Judge Cut the Class Representatives’ Awards to $5,000?

Four representatives asked for $10,000 each. Judge Freeman found that amount inequitable next to the modest payments ordinary class members were expected to receive, with purchaser-class members estimated at $18 to $56. She approved $5,000 each to recognize their work while narrowing the gap. Service awards must be reasonable under Ninth Circuit law. See Radcliffe v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., 715 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2013).

Did the Judge Overrule the Objections to the Google Assistant Settlement?

Yes. Judge Freeman overruled all seven objections, which raised concerns including the adequacy of the recovery, the size of the fees and the claims process. She found the settlement met Rule 23’s requirements for final approval, applying the fairness factors courts in the Ninth Circuit use, such as those in Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998).

The class response supported approval. As of September 30, 2026, the administrator had received 217 valid and timely exclusion requests against more than 1.49 million timely claims. Overruling the objections does not mean every class member agreed with the terms. It means the court rejected them as grounds to deny approval.

What Was the Google Assistant Privacy Lawsuit About?

Filed in 2019, the lawsuit alleged that Google Assistant-enabled devices sometimes treated background speech or sounds as an activation phrase such as “Hey Google” or “OK Google,” a situation the litigation called a “False Accept.” Plaintiffs alleged the devices collected sound files without consent and that some recordings were shared with third-party contractors for human review. They also asserted claims involving privacy, Google’s representations and California consumer-protection law.

Voice-assistant privacy suits commonly invoke the federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq., with civil remedies in § 2520), the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 632, with civil damages under § 637.2) and California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). The settlement materials reviewed do not list every cause of action, so check the complaint for the exact claims.

Google denied the allegations, and the approval is not a finding that Google violated the law. This was a negotiated settlement, not a trial verdict. For the settlement background, see our article $68M Google Assistant Privacy Settlement, Claim Deadline Passed and Final Approval Status.

Can Consumers Still Claim Money From the $68 Million Google Assistant Settlement?

The ordinary deadline has passed. The deadline to submit a claim, exclude yourself or object was August 27, 2026. The final approval hearing was held October 1, and the judge granted final approval on October 13.

The administrator’s website says late claims may still be received, but acceptance is at class counsel’s discretion, so a late claim is not guaranteed to be accepted. Check the official Google Assistant Privacy Litigation settlement website and its FAQ.

Who Was Covered by the Google Assistant Settlement?

• Purchaser Settlement Class: eligible U.S. users who bought qualifying Google-made devices between May 18, 2016, and March 19, 2026, including Google Home, Google Home Mini, Google Home Max, Google Nest Hub, Google Nest Hub Max and qualifying Pixel smartphones.
• Privacy Settlement Class: eligible Google Assistant users, or members of a user’s household, whose communications were recorded or obtained because of a False Accept or disclosed to a third-party review vendor during the settlement period.

The notice sets out the full definitions and exclusions.

How Much Might Google Assistant Settlement Claimants Receive?

The settlement uses a points-based allocation. Plaintiffs estimated about $18 to $56 per purchaser-class member and about $2 to $10 per privacy-class member. These are estimates, and the final amounts depend on valid claims and the money available for distribution.

When Will Google Assistant Settlement Payments Arrive?

No payment date had been announced as of October 17, 2026. The October 13 order directs class counsel to submit a proposed judgment. Payments in class settlements generally follow the “effective date,” which depends on judgment being entered and any appeals being resolved. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), a notice of appeal is generally due within 30 days after entry of judgment, so an objector’s appeal could delay distribution.

What Does the Fee Ruling Mean for Google?

Google agreed to a $68 million cash settlement and denied wrongdoing. The ruling gives the settlement final approval and approves fees and expenses with the adjustments above. It does not find that Google recorded every affected conversation or that every alleged recording was unlawful, and it does not require Google to pay the $22.67 million on top of the fund. For consumers, the practical issue now is how and when the approved fund is distributed.

Key Dates in the Google Assistant Privacy Settlement

Date	Event
July 2019	Case filed in the Northern District of California
May 18, 2016 – March 19, 2026	Settlement class period for purchasers
August 27, 2026	Claim, exclusion and objection deadline
September 30, 2026	Administrator reports 217 exclusion requests and over 1.49 million claims
October 1, 2026	Final approval hearing
October 13, 2026	Final approval and fee order (Document 584)
October 15, 2026	Reuters reports on the $3,000 rate ruling
October 17, 2026	No payment date announced

Frequently Asked Questions About the Google Assistant Settlement Attorney Fees

Why Did the Google Assistant Settlement Lawyers Receive $22.67 Million?

Judge Beth Labson Freeman approved $22,666,666.70, which is 33.33% of the $68 million fund, after finding it reasonable given the result, risks, work performed and comparable awards.

Did the Judge Reject the Lawyers’ Entire Fee Request?

No. She rejected certain hourly rates in the lodestar check but approved the full one-third fee.

Do the Attorney Fees Come Out of the $68 Million Google Settlement Fund?

The fee equals one-third of the fund, and under the common-fund approach it is ordinarily paid from it, which reduces what is left for class members. Check the settlement agreement for exactly which costs are charged to the fund.

Why Did the Judge Call the $3,000 Hourly Rate Unreasonable?

The cases cited to support it topped out at $1,975, and the highest comparable rate the judge found in the Northern District of California was $1,545.

What Rate Did the Judge Use for David Scott?

$1,600 per hour for the fee calculation.

Did the Judge Reduce Other Lawyers’ Rates?

Yes. Daryl Scott’s rate went from $1,960 to $1,600, and Geoffrey Horn’s and Vincent Briganti’s from $1,795 to $1,600.

How Much Did the Rate Reductions Change the Calculation?

They lowered the lodestar by $217,800. The judge found the adjustment did not materially change her assessment of the fee’s reasonableness.

How Much Did the Class Representatives Receive?

$5,000 each for Asif Kumandan, Melissa Spurr, Lourdes Galvan and Eleeanna Galvan, down from the $10,000 each they requested.

Did Google Admit Wrongdoing?

No. Google denied the allegations and settled without admitting wrongdoing.

Is the $68 Million Google Settlement Finally Approved?

Yes. Judge Freeman granted final approval on October 13, 2026.

Can I Still File a Google Assistant Settlement Claim?

The August 27, 2026, deadline has passed. The administrator says late claims may be received but acceptance is at class counsel’s discretion.

When Will Google Assistant Settlement Payments Be Sent?

No date had been announced as of October 17, 2026. Watch the official settlement website.

Does Every Google Assistant Settlement Claimant Get the Same Amount?

No. The settlement uses a points-based system with separate allocations for purchaser and privacy claims.

Conclusion: Google Assistant Settlement Lawyers Keep the Full Fee Despite the Billing-Rate Rebuke

Judge Freeman approved $22.67 million in fees from Google’s $68 million Assistant privacy settlement while calling a $3,000 hourly rate “patently unreasonable.” She cut four lawyers’ rates to $1,600 for the lodestar check, which lowered it by $217,800, but approved the full one-third fee after weighing the result, the risk and the work. She also approved $1,021,738.40 in expenses, halved the four class representatives’ service awards to $5,000 and overruled seven objections.

The August 27 claim deadline has passed, and no payment date had been announced as of October 17. People who filed claims should watch the official administrator site. Late claims are discretionary.

The bottom line: The judge criticized particular hourly rates, not the overall one-third fee. The settlement is finally approved, and distribution is the next step.

Sources and Further Reading on the Google Assistant Settlement Fee Ruling

1. U.S. District Court, Northern District of California: October 13, 2026, final approval and attorney-fee order, Document 584.
2. Reuters: Judge Calls $3,000 Hourly Rate “Patently Unreasonable,” October 15, 2026.
3. Google Assistant Privacy Litigation settlement website and FAQ.
4. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A).
5. Cases: Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980); Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984); Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002); In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation, 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011); Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008); Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998); Radcliffe v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., 715 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2013).
6. Statutes: 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 and 2520; Cal. Penal Code §§ 632 and 637.2; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
7. AllAboutLawyer.com: $68M Google Assistant Privacy Settlement, Claim Deadline Passed and Final Approval Status.
8. AllAboutLawyer.com: Google RTB Privacy Settlement: Judge Cuts $128M Fee Request To $21.9M, a related fee-scrutiny ruling.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. The privacy allegations were resolved through a settlement without an admission of wrongdoing. AllAboutLawyer.com is a legal information website, not a law firm.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the court’s October 13, 2026, order (Document 584, No. 5:19-cv-04286-BLF), the official settlement administrator’s website and Reuters’ October 15, 2026, report, as of October 17, 2026. Last Updated: October 17, 2026.