Supreme Court: Google class-action case should be revisited

Headline Legal News

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed a lower court to take another look at a lawsuit that involved Google and privacy concerns and ended in a class-action settlement.

The high court said in an unsigned opinion that a lower court should address whether those who sued had the right to do so. The Google users who sued argued that the search engine sends website operators potentially identifying information when someone clicks on a link produced by a search. They said the practice violates users’ privacy under federal law.

Google eventually agreed to include certain disclosures about its practices on three webpages and settle the class action for $8.5 million. Of that amount, $2.1 million went to lawyers, $1 million paid administrative costs and $5.3 million was set aside for six organizations that deal with internet privacy issues. The individuals who initially sued received $5,000 each, but the millions of Google users they represented received nothing. If all 129 million people had been paid, they would have gotten 4 cents each.

The justices had taken the case because it raised issues of fairness in the rare instances in which courts approve a “cy-pres” settlement, roughly translated as near as possible, and find it’s impractical to send money to the very large class of affected people.

But the court’s opinion Wednesday didn’t deal with that issue. The justices said a lower court needed to address whether the individuals who sued were entitled to do so. The justices said a federal trial court or the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should resolve that issue.

Related listings

  • Court upholds car rental tax imposed in Maricopa County

    Court upholds car rental tax imposed in Maricopa County

    Headline Legal News 02/26/2019

    The Arizona Supreme Court on Monday upheld a car rental tax surcharge that’s imposed in Maricopa County to pay for building a professional football stadium and other sports and recreational facilities, marking the second time an appeals court h...

  • Court to hear case over ID of Texas execution drug supplier

    Court to hear case over ID of Texas execution drug supplier

    Headline Legal News 10/20/2018

    The Texas Supreme Court has reversed itself and granted the state's request to review a case dealing with the disclosure of an execution drug supplier that officials have fought for years to keep secret.The Texas Supreme Court on Friday approved the ...

  • Juvenile waived to adult court in Indy doctor's slaying

    Juvenile waived to adult court in Indy doctor's slaying

    Headline Legal News 09/14/2018

    A juvenile has been waived to adult court to face charges in the fatal shooting of an Indiana University doctor and educator last year.Online court records say 16-year-old Tarius Blade faces three felony burglary charges in the Nov. 20, 2017, slaying...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

Santa Ana, CA Workers' Compensation Lawyers We are one of Orange County’s leading Workers’ Compensation firms. >> read
Pennsylvania Employment Law Firm Attorney Marc E. Weinstein advocates for the rights of employees and minorities. >> read