Google Play $85 Million Attorney Fee Request Rejected, Judge Donato Says Billing Records Are “Utterly Lacking”

Quick Facts: Why Did Judge Donato Reject the $85 Million Google Play Attorney Fee Request?

On October 15, 2026, U.S. District Judge James Donato of the Northern District of California denied an $85 million attorney-fee request from the lawyers who represented individual consumers in In re Google Play Consumer Antitrust Litigation. He wrote that their billing records were “utterly lacking in information demonstrating what work was done and for what purpose.”

The lawyers wanted the money paid out of the $630 million consumer fund created by the separate Google Play settlement negotiated by state attorneys general. The judge did not close the door. He denied the request as submitted and gave counsel until November 13, 2026 to file an amended request for fees and litigation expenses.

The same order also denied $8.58 million in litigation expenses and $5,000 incentive awards for each of six individual plaintiffs. Only the fee and expense requests were expressly open to renewal. Read the October 15 court order.

Detail	Information
Case	In re Google Play Consumer Antitrust Litigation
Judge	James Donato
Court	U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Consumer case number	3:20-cv-05761-JD
Related multidistrict litigation	3:21-md-02981-JD
Date of ruling	October 15, 2026
Fee request	$85 million
Consumer settlement fund	$630 million
Share of consumer fund requested	Approximately 13.5%
Hours claimed	More than 98,200
Lodestar claimed	$63,444,800.30
Expenses requested	Approximately $8.58 million
Incentive awards requested	5,000eachforsixplaintiffs(30,000 total)
Decision	Fees, expenses and incentive awards denied as submitted
Deadline to renew fees and expenses	November 13, 2026
Does the ruling cancel Google’s settlement?	No. The fee dispute is separate from the state attorneys general settlement.

Sources: October 15 court order and Reuters, October 16, 2026.

What Did Judge Donato Say About the Google Play Lawyers’ Billing Records?

Judge Donato found that the records filed by consumer counsel did not give him enough detail to decide whether the requested fees were justified.

The lawyers claimed more than 98,200 hours and a lodestar of $63,444,800.30. They argued that $85 million was reasonable because it represented a multiplier of about 1.34 on that lodestar.

The lodestar method multiplies the hours reasonably worked by a reasonable hourly rate. The U.S. Supreme Court described this approach in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), and courts still use it as a starting point or a cross-check on a fee request.

Why Were the Google Play Billing Entries Too Vague?

The court criticized entries grouped under broad labels such as “pleadings/briefs/pretrial motions” and “investigation / factual or legal research.” Those labels did not say what was done, why it was needed, or how much time each task took. The judge also objected to unexplained numerical billing codes.

His concern was not just the size of the request. A lawyer who asks to be paid from a common fund has to supply records detailed enough for the court to test the hours. Without them, the judge said, the request could not fairly be evaluated or awarded.

Did Judge Donato Say the Google Play Consumer Lawyers Did No Useful Work?

No. The order does not say the lawyers did nothing of value or that every hour was improper. It says the records did not show which work was reasonable and which work actually contributed to the fund the lawyers wanted to be paid from.

Why Did the Google Play Consumer Lawyers Ask for $85 Million?

The lawyers represented six individual consumer plaintiffs in litigation over Google’s Play Store practices. They argued that their work contributed materially to the settlement and asked for about 13.5% of the $630 million consumer fund, backed by their lodestar cross-check.

The $630 million is part of a larger $700 million agreement: $630 million for eligible consumers and $70 million for participating states and territories. If the $85 million were approved and paid from the consumer fund, less money would remain for consumers.

The lead states did not object to the $85 million request, although they did not endorse a specific amount. Judge Donato still found the record inadequate. He stressed that the settlement came from the work of several legal teams, including attorneys for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. See Reuters’ report on the ruling.

Is the Google Play Consumer Case Still a Class Action?

No, and this is one of the most important points in the order. The consumer case was first certified as a class action. Judge Donato decertified the class on September 13, 2023, after excluding the plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Singer’s pass-through formula, which had been central to class certification. In the October 15 order he wrote: “This is not a class action.” Read the September 13, 2023 decertification order.

Why Does the Decertification Matter Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h)?

Rule 23(h) lets a court award reasonable attorney fees and nontaxable costs in a certified class action. Because the consumer class was decertified, Judge Donato held that Rule 23(h) did not govern these requests. The lawyers instead relied on the common-fund doctrine, and they had to show the court that it supported the amount they wanted.

The ruling also explains the denial of the six $5,000 incentive awards. The lawyers did not point to authority allowing such awards in a case that is no longer a class action, and the individuals did not submit declarations explaining why they deserved more than other eligible consumers.

What Else Did Judge Donato Question About the Google Play Fee Request?

How Much Did the Failed Class Certification Matter?

The judge called the results in the consumer case “not particularly impressive” and questioned whether the consumer fund should pay for time spent on the failed certification effort. That was part of his review of the fee request, not a ruling that the whole lawsuit lacked merit.

How Much Credit Do the State Attorneys General Get for the $630 Million?

The court said the whole fund could not be credited to the consumer lawyers alone. Consumer counsel may deserve pay for work that actually helped create the fund, but any award has to reflect their real contribution.

What About Work That Helped Epic Games Against Google?

The judge noted that Epic Games’ lawyers did the heavy lifting in proving Google’s anticompetitive conduct and winning an injunction. The consumer lawyers said their work supported Epic’s case, including testimony from two Google employees they deposed. Judge Donato asked whether work that mainly benefited Epic should be paid by Epic instead of coming out of money meant for Google Play consumers.

What Must the Google Play Consumer Lawyers Do Before November 13, 2026?

The amended request has to let the court separate work that reasonably contributed to the consumer fund from work that did not. Counsel must identify:

• The hours spent on the unsuccessful class-certification effort.
• The hours spent on activities that cannot fairly be said to have contributed to the fund reached in the state attorneys general case.
• The specific tasks performed and the time spent on each.
• The legal basis for charging that work to the consumer fund.

The judge also invited the lawyers to consider voluntarily reducing their lodestar. He said he may refer the records to a special master accountant, meaning a court-appointed person who helps review complex financial records. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 is the general rule on court-appointed masters. He told counsel to drop law-firm profiles, attorney biographies and marketing material.

Is the $85 Million Google Play Fee Request Permanently Denied?

No. It was denied as filed. The judge may approve a smaller fee, reject a renewed request, or award a different amount. Nothing in the order guarantees $85 million.

What Happens to the $8.58 Million Google Play Litigation Expense Request?

The lawyers asked for about $8.58 million in expenses, including roughly $6.3 million in expert fees. Judge Donato said the submissions did not explain the expense categories well enough to decide which costs were properly chargeable to the common fund. He denied the request as submitted but allowed counsel to renew it.

What Happened to the Six $5,000 Incentive Awards in the Google Play Case?

The judge denied all six, totaling $30,000. His reasons were that the case is no longer a class action, the lawyers cited no authority showing these awards were allowed and fair under the common-fund doctrine or 15 U.S.C. § 15c, and the plaintiffs filed no declarations explaining why they deserved them. This does not mean the plaintiffs did no work. It means the request lacked legal support and evidence. The order did not expressly invite a renewed incentive-award request.

What Is the $700 Million Google Play State Attorneys General Settlement?

The state attorneys general alleged that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly over Android app distribution and in-app billing, which led to higher prices and fewer choices for consumers. Google denied wrongdoing and settled.

Fund	Amount	Purpose
Consumer settlement fund	$630 million	Eligible consumers with qualifying Google Play purchases
State monetary fund	$70 million	Participating states and territories
Total	$700 million	Combined state settlement

The $85 million request targets only the $630 million consumer fund, not the $70 million state fund. Judge Donato’s October 15 order recognizes that the state settlement received final approval. The fee dispute is a separate matter. See the official Google Play State AG Antitrust Litigation website.

Which Federal and California Laws Apply to the Google Play Antitrust Claims?

Section 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 2)

Section 2 prohibits monopolization and attempted monopolization. It is the core federal law behind claims that Google used its control of Google Play distribution and billing to exclude competition.

Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15)

Section 4 lets people injured in their business or property by an antitrust violation sue for treble damages, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees. Consumers who overpaid for apps and in-app purchases rely on this provision.

15 U.S.C. § 15c: State Attorneys General Suing for Residents

Section 15c lets a state attorney general sue as parens patriae (on behalf of residents) to recover damages for certain federal antitrust injuries. It also covers notice, exclusion and court approval of settlements, and § 15c(d) states that the amount of the plaintiffs’ attorney fee, if any, is determined by the court. Official text: 15 U.S.C. § 15c.

California’s Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law

Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California commonly plead California claims alongside federal ones, including the Cartwright Act (California Business and Professions Code § 16700 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code § 17200). Those state-law theories were part of the broader Google Play litigation allegations.

What Is the Legal Basis for Attorney Fees From a Consumer Fund?

The Common-Fund Doctrine

Under the common-fund doctrine, lawyers whose work creates or preserves a fund for others can recover reasonable fees from that fund. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the principle in Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980). The court still has to decide whether the fee is reasonable and whether the work can fairly be charged to that particular fund.

Ninth Circuit Standards: Vizcaino and Bluetooth

In the Ninth Circuit, courts may use either the percentage-of-fund method or the lodestar method. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002), discusses both methods, treats 25% of a common fund as a benchmark, and encourages a lodestar cross-check. In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation, 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011), requires district judges to scrutinize fee awards closely so counsel do not take a disproportionate share of what class members receive.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)

Rule 54(d)(2) is the general rule governing motions for attorney’s fees and related nontaxable expenses. Together with the court’s order setting the November 13 deadline, it frames how the renewed request must be filed.

Why Rule 23(h) Did Not Apply

Because the class was decertified, Judge Donato ruled that Rule 23(h) did not control. That is why the court did not approve fees simply because similar awards are common in settled class actions.

Will the Attorney-Fee Dispute Reduce Google Play Settlement Payments?

The October 15 order does not decide how much any consumer will receive. The $85 million and $8.58 million requests were denied as submitted, so neither is an approved deduction under that order. If the court later approves some amount, it could reduce the net fund available for distribution, subject to the settlement’s terms and other authorized costs. If it approves less, or nothing, the deduction would be smaller. No one should assume a particular payout increase yet.

Does the Fee Ruling Cancel the Google Play Settlement?

No. The order deals with the consumer lawyers’ fees, expenses and incentive awards. It does not vacate the $700 million settlement or reverse the approval of the state attorneys general settlement.

Does Google Have to Pay Another $85 Million?

No. The request is for payment from the existing $630 million consumer fund, not an extra payment on top of the $700 million. It is also not an approved award.

Who Qualifies for the Google Play Consumer Settlement?

The settlement generally covers consumers whose Google payments profile showed a qualifying U.S. legal address when they made covered Google Play purchases between August 16, 2016 and September 30, 2023. Qualifying purchases include paid apps and in-app digital content bought through Google Play Billing, such as game purchases, subscriptions and paid app features. Eligible addresses include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The settlement’s full class definition and exclusions control.

Do Google Play Consumers Need to File a Claim Form?

For most eligible consumers, the settlement administrator says payments are meant to be made automatically with no claim form, using the email address or mobile number tied to the Google Play account and delivered through PayPal or Venmo. A supplemental claims process is planned for people who cannot access those contact details, do not want to use PayPal or Venmo, or expected a payment and did not get one. People can register on the official site to be told when it opens.

Status note: The administrator’s website has stated that the final approval order was not yet signed and that distribution had not begun, while Judge Donato’s October 15 order says final approval of the state settlement has been granted. The website may not yet reflect the latest court development. Check the official site for current instructions and do not assume payments have already been sent.

Official sources: settlement eligibility and FAQ and the settlement website.

How Much Could Eligible Google Play Consumers Receive?

The official notice says eligible consumers will receive at least $2, with the actual amount depending on their qualifying Google Play spending and the total pool of eligible purchases. Final amounts will also depend on authorized deductions from the consumer fund, including any fees and expenses the court approves. No fixed payout is guaranteed.

For more background, see our earlier article, Google Class Action Lawsuit, $700 Million Settlement Could Pay Over 100 Million Users — Who Qualifies and How to Claim.

What Happens Next in the Google Play Attorney-Fee Dispute?

The next confirmed date is November 13, 2026, when consumer counsel may file an amended request for fees and expenses. The renewed filing must fix the problems the judge identified: more detailed records, hours for the failed class-certification effort separated out, and an explanation of why other work benefited the consumer fund. The court may send the records to a special master accountant. After that, Judge Donato could approve all, some or none of the request. The incentive awards were denied without an express invitation to renew them.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Google Play $85 Million Attorney Fee Ruling

Did Judge Donato reject the $85 million Google Play attorney-fee request?

Yes. On October 15, 2026, he denied it as submitted because the billing records did not show what work was done or why. Counsel may file an amended request by November 13, 2026.

Is the $85 million Google Play fee request permanently denied?

No. It was denied in its current form. The lawyers have a final opportunity to file a revised application, and no particular amount is guaranteed.

What is the deadline to renew the Google Play attorney-fee request?

November 13, 2026, for amended fee and litigation-expense requests.

Why did Judge Donato call the Google Play billing records “utterly lacking”?

The records used broad task labels and unexplained billing codes, so he could not tell what was done, why it was necessary, or whether the hours were chargeable to the consumer fund.

How many hours did the Google Play consumer lawyers claim?

More than 98,200 hours, with a lodestar of $63,444,800.30. The judge found the documentation inadequate to evaluate the request.

Is the Google Play consumer lawsuit still a class action?

No. Judge Donato decertified the consumer class on September 13, 2023, and wrote in the October 15, 2026 order that the case is not a class action.

Does the ruling affect the $700 million Google Play settlement?

It does not cancel it. The request targets the $630 million consumer fund, and the $70 million state fund is separate. Approved fees or expenses could later reduce what remains for eligible consumers.

Did Judge Donato also reject the $8.58 million Google Play expense request?

Yes, as submitted, because the records lacked detail. Counsel may renew it with adequate documentation.

What happened to the six $5,000 Google Play incentive awards?

They were denied. The lawyers gave no legal basis for the awards in a case that is no longer a class action and filed no declarations supporting them.

Does Google admit it overcharged consumers in the Google Play settlement?

No. Google denied wrongdoing and settled the state attorneys general claims without a trial verdict.

Who qualifies for the Google Play consumer settlement?

Generally, people whose Google payments profile showed a qualifying U.S. legal address when they made covered Google Play app or in-app purchases from August 16, 2016 to September 30, 2023, subject to the settlement’s detailed terms.

Do I need to file a claim to get Google Play settlement money?

Most eligible consumers are expected to be paid automatically. A supplemental claims process is planned for those who cannot receive or access an automatic payment.

When will Google Play settlement payments arrive?

The October 15 fee order sets no payment date. Check the official settlement website for the latest distribution status.

Conclusion: Google Play Consumer Lawyers Must Rework Their $85 Million Fee Request

Judge Donato’s October 15, 2026 ruling is a real setback for the lawyers seeking $85 million from the $630 million Google Play consumer fund. He found their billing records too vague, questioned how much their work contributed to the fund, and pointed to the failed class-certification effort and the large role of the state attorneys general and Epic Games’ lawyers.

The fee, expense and incentive-award requests were all denied as submitted, but counsel can renew the fee and expense requests by November 13, 2026. For consumers, the $700 million settlement stays in place. The court has simply not approved the requested deductions, and any eventual award will depend on the amended filing and the judge’s decision. Keep watching the official settlement website for payment instructions.

Sources and Official Records

1. Judge James Donato, October 15, 2026 Order on Consumer Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Incentive Awards
2. Reuters, U.S. Judge Rebuffs $85 Million Fee Request by Lawyers in Google Play Antitrust Litigation, October 16, 2026
3. Official Google Play State AG Antitrust Litigation Website
4. Google Play State AG Settlement Eligibility and Payment FAQs
5. 15 U.S.C. § 15c, Actions by State Attorneys General
6. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
7. September 13, 2023 Order Decertifying the Consumer Class
8. Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983); 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)
9. Google Class Action Lawsuit, $700 Million Settlement Could Pay Over 100 Million Users — Who Qualifies and How to Claim

This article provides general legal information, not legal advice.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the October 15, 2026 court order, the Reuters report of October 16, 2026, and the official settlement website run by the administrator (googleplaystateagantitrustlitigation.com), as of October 17, 2026. Last Updated: October 17, 2026.