Frank v. Gaos

Last updated
Frank v. Gaos
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 31, 2018
Decided March 20, 2019
Full case nameTheodore H. Frank, et al. v. Paloma Gaos, et al.
Docket no. 17-961
Citations586 U.S. ___ ( more )
139 S. Ct. 1041; 203 L. Ed. 2d 404
Case history
PriorIn re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litig., 87 F. Supp. 3d 1122 (N.D. Cal. 2015); affirmed, 869 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 1697 (2018).
Holding
The case is remanded for the courts below to address the plaintiffs’ standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
Per curiam
DissentThomas

Frank v. Gaos, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a per curiam decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case concerning the practice of cy pres settlements in class action lawsuits. Following oral argument, the court asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether the parties had Article III standing to pursue the case in federal courts. Supplemental briefing was completed on December 21, 2018. On March 20, 2019, the court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit to address the plaintiffs’ standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins . [1]

Contents

Background and lower court decisions

In 2010, several individuals, including lead plaintiff Paloma Gaos, brought a class action against Google for allegedly leaking, in violation of privacy laws, information about their search terms to third parties by including search terms in the referrer header. [lower-alpha 1] [2] After four days of negotiations, both sides agreed to a settlement, which requires approval by the presiding judge in the case to determine whether, per Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is "fair, reasonable, and adequate". [3] In exchange for settlement funds, all class members, even if they were unaware of the settlement, relinquish their claim against the defendant. [4]

Under the proposed settlement terms, the three lawyers in the case would receive over $2 million (an hourly rate of $1000/hour) and the named plaintiffs would receive $5,000 apiece, while an additional $6 million would be given to several privacy groups under the cy-près doctrine in lieu of compensation to then remaining unnamed class action members, due to the cost of administering the payout to those estimated 129 million individuals and the low amount of compensation (an estimated four cents). The privacy groups that would receive some of the money included each of the three lawyers' alma maters and several groups that Google has supported. The district court judge in the case, Judge Edward Davlia, noted "the elephant in the room is that many of them are law schools that you attended. ... I’m disappointed that the usual suspects are still usual." [2] Bloomberg News stated that Judge Davlia remarked that the lack of transparency in selecting the recipients of the money "raises a red flag" and "doesn’t pass the smell test", although it was nonetheless approved. [5] [2]

In response to the settlement, Ted Frank and Melissa Holyoak of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, two of the 129 million unnamed members of the class being represented in the case, intervened to challenge the settlement on the grounds that it violated a procedural rule that such cy-pres settlements be "fair, reasonable and adequate." [6] Google labeled Frank as a "professional objector". [6] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the use of cy-pres in this case, noting that otherwise the estimated 129 million web users that could theoretically receive damages from the suit would receive "a paltry 4 cents in recovery." [7] [6]

As Brian Miller of the Center for Individual Rights, in an opinion piece for Forbes , summarized the problem: [8]

Since our justice system is adversarial, it works best when the parties vigorously represent their interests in court. But in large class actions, individuals lose their voice. The attorneys for both sides have an incentive to reach an agreement, even if it comes at the expense of the individuals who were actually harmed. As Judge Richard Posner once said in an opinion, 'The control of the class over its lawyers usually is attenuated, often to the point of nonexistence.' This typically results in settlements that maximize attorney’s fees. Any surplus is often awarded to third party charities rather than to the actual plaintiffs. [8]

Supreme Court appeal

Frank filed a petition of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Cato Institute, Center for Individual Rights, and Attorney General of Arizona, in a brief joined by 15 other states, [4] filed amicus curiae briefs urging the court to grant certiorari. [9] The court granted certiorari on April 30, 2018. [3] [9] The Court gives the following as the question presented in this case: [3]

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) permits representatives to maintain a class action where so doing "is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy," and Rule 23(e)(2) requires that a settlement that binds class members must be 'fair, reasonable, and adequate.' In this case, the Ninth Circuit upheld approval of an $8.5 million settlement that disposed of absent class members' claims while providing them zero monetary relief. Breaking with decisions of the Third Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, and Eighth Circuit that require compensating class members before putting class action proceeds to other uses, the Ninth Circuit held that the settlement's award of all net proceeds to third-party organizations selected by the defendant and class counsel was a fair and adequate remedy under the trust-law doctrine of cy pres. The question presented is: Whether, or in what circumstances, a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members supports class certification and comports with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be 'fair, reasonable, and adequate.'

The Solicitor General filed an amicus brief in support of neither party arguing that, before reaching the merits on the question presented, there is "considerable doubt whether the Court has Article III jurisdiction to address that question, because plaintiffs’ standing in the district court depended on a theory of injury that this Court subsequently rejected in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins , 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016)" and that the court may wish to vacate and remand the case to address the issue of standing. [10]

Oral arguments were heard on October 31, 2018, with Frank having been one of the few Supreme Court attorneys ever to argue his own case. [11] [12] The justices were divided along partisan lines based on observers' opinions, with the liberal justices supporting the cy pres approach used, while the conservative members felt the cy pres decision denied the class members their restitution and were critical of how much of the settlement went to legal fees. [13] Writing for SCOTUSblog, Ronald Mann noted that at oral argument "all seemed to agree that the district court’s reasoning could not withstand scrutiny under Spokeo. The point of disagreement seemed to be whether there was any prospect that the plaintiffs could identify some new argument that would satisfy Spokeo at this late date." [14]

The following week, the court ordered the parties and the Solicitor General "to file supplemental briefs addressing whether any named plaintiff has standing such that the federal courts have Article III jurisdiction over this dispute." [9] Briefing will be completed by December 21. [9]

The Court issued a per curiam decision on March 20, 2019, vacating the Ninth Circuit's decision and requesting continued review based on the Spokeo decision which had been brought up in the briefing stage of the case, in which questioned whether there was proper standing in this case. As the Spokeo question was not considered at the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court could not be the first court to consider that matter, and thus returned the case to the Ninth Circuit, expressing no view on the matter otherwise. [15]

Notes

  1. ↑ In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, 5:10-cv-04809, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose)

Related Research Articles

The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.

Cy-près doctrine Court amendment of a legal document

The cy-près doctrine is a legal doctrine which allows a court to amend a legal document to enforce it "as near as possible" to the original intent of the instrument, in situations where it becomes impossible, impracticable, or illegal to enforce it under its original terms. The doctrine first arose in the English courts of equity, originating in the law of charitable trusts, but it has since been applied in the context of class action settlements in the United States.

Theodore H. "Ted" Frank, is an American lawyer, activist, and legal writer, based in Washington, D.C. He is the counsel of record and petitioner in Frank v. Gaos, the first Supreme Court case to deal with the issue of cy pres in class action settlements; he is one of the few Supreme Court attorneys ever to argue his own case. He wrote the vetting report of vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin for the John McCain campaign in the 2008 presidential election. He founded the Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF) in 2009; it temporarily merged with the Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2015, but as of 2019 CCAF is now part of the new Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, a free-market nonprofit public-interest law firm founded by Frank and his CCAF colleague Melissa Holyoak. The New York Times calls him the "leading critic of abusive class-action settlements"; the Wall Street Journal has referred to him as "a leading tort-reform advocate" and praised his work exposing dubious practices by plaintiffs' attorneys in class actions.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a group of roughly 1.5 million women could not be certified as a valid class of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit for employment discrimination against Walmart. Lead plaintiff Betty Dukes, a Walmart employee, and others alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies and practices in Walmart stores.

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brought to court in July 2004 in the Southern District of New York, this was the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. 120 (2012), also known as Sackett I, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court ruled that because the Environmental Protection Agency's orders constitute "final agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal courts may hear appeals from its orders.

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court copyright decision in which the Court held, 6–3, that the first-sale doctrine applies to copies of copyrighted works lawfully made abroad.

Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Los Angeles law, Municipal Code § 41.49, requiring hotel operators to retain records about guests for a ninety-day period is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it does not allow for pre-compliance review.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. ___ (2016) is a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit correctly found that the University of Texas at Austin's undergraduate admissions policy survived strict scrutiny, in accordance with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of the University's race-conscious admissions policy.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court. The Court did not discuss whether "the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate conclusion — that Robins adequately alleged an injury in fact — was correct."

Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President Donald Trump, which restricted travel into the United States by people from several nations, or by refugees without valid travel documents. Hawaii and several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation on statutory and constitutional grounds. Citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials, they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that Federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to review a denial of class certification after plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice.

Byrd v. United States, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that drivers of rental cars have rights protecting them from unconstitutional searches by police, even if the drivers are not listed on the rental agreement.

Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to antitrust laws related to third-party resellers. The case centers on Apple Inc.'s App Store, and whether consumers of apps offered through the store have Article III standing under federal antitrust laws to bring a class-action antitrust lawsuit against Apple for practices it uses to regulate the App Store. The case centers on the applicability of the "Illinois Brick doctrine" established by the Supreme Court in 1977 via Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which determined that indirect consumers of products lack Article III standing to bring antitrust charges against producers of those products. In its 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that since consumers purchased apps directly through Apple, that they have standing under Illinois Brick to seek antitrust charges against Apple.

Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court unanimously ruled that a copyright infringement suit must wait until the copyright is successfully registered by the United States Copyright Office.

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the mere existence of probable cause for an arrest did not bar the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, but deferred consideration of the broader question of when it might. The case concerned a § 1983 lawsuit filed against Riviera Beach by Fane Lozman, who had been arrested while criticizing local politicians during the public comments section of a City Council meeting. The city argued that under Hartman v. Moore he could not sue for retaliation, as they had probable cause to arrest him for the offense of disturbing a lawful assembly. Lozman conceded that they had probable cause, but argued that Hartman, a case about retaliatory prosecutions, did not extend to retaliatory arrests, and that instead Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle allowed his suit.

Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices considered the scope of protections for federal employees in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Specifically, the Court ruled that plaintiffs only need to prove that age was a motivating factor in the decision in order to sue. However, establishing but for causation is still necessary in determining the appropriate remedy. If a plaintiff can establish that the age was the determining factor in the employment outcome, they may be entitled to compensatory damages or other relief relating to the end result of the employment decision.

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with standing under Article III of the Constitution related to class-action suits against private defendants. In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that only those that can show concrete harm have standing to seek damages against private defendants.

References

  1. ↑ Frank v. Gaos,No. 17-961 , 586 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019) (citing Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins ,No. 13-1339 , 578 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016)).
  2. 1 2 3 Orlowski, Andrew (September 5, 2014). "Judge: Google class action 'usual suspects' cash-fling 'smells'". The Register. Retrieved 30 June 2018.
  3. 1 2 3 "17-961 FRANK V. GAOS" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 30 June 2018.
  4. 1 2 Oramel H. Skinner; et al. (February 7, 2018). "Brief of the Attorneys General of Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming as amici curiae in support of Petitioners" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. Docket No. 17-961.
  5. ↑ See 5:10-cv-04809, Tr. of Proceedings on Aug. 23, 2013, Docket Item No. 57.
  6. 1 2 3 Chung, Andrew (April 30, 2018). "U.S. Supreme Court to hear Google privacy settlement dispute". Reuters. Reuters. Retrieved 30 June 2018.
  7. ↑ In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litig., 869F.3d737 (9th Cir.2017).
  8. 1 2 Miller, Brian. "Supreme Court To Review Important Class Actions Case". Forbes. Retrieved 30 June 2018.
  9. 1 2 3 4 "Docket for No. 17-961". Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 22 August 2018.
  10. ↑ Brief for the United States as amicus curiae in support of neither party, p. 10., Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961 (2018)
  11. ↑ Mauro, Tony (August 29, 2018). "Get Ready for a Frank Oral Argument". Supreme Court Brief. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
  12. ↑ Liptak, Adam (15 October 2018). "His Case Made It to the Supreme Court. He Didn't Have to Look Far for a Lawyer". The New York Times.
  13. ↑ Wolf, Richard (October 31, 2018). "Supreme Court divided over Google class-action deal that rewarded lawyers, nonprofits ... but not customers". USA Today . Retrieved October 31, 2018.
  14. ↑ Mann, Ronald (November 6, 2018). "Justices call for additional briefs in dispute about "cy pres" class-action settlements". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 13 November 2018.
  15. ↑ Rapazzini, Mark, "Trends in Class Action Settlements: Developments in the Application of the Cy Pres Doctrine" Kroll Business Services, May 7, 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.