In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation

Filing 67

OBJECTIONS to #65 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT by Kim Morrison. (Kurilich, Matt) (Filed on 8/5/2014) Modified on 8/8/2014 (cv, COURT STAFF).

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document67 Filed08/05/14 Page1 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Matthew Kurilich California Bar Number 30172
17321 Irvine BLVD STE 115
Tustin CA 92780
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile
714-734-3716
[e-mail]
Attorney for Objector
Kim Morrison

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

In re GOOGLE REFERRER HEADER )
)
PRIVACY LITIGATION
)
)
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO
)
)
ALL ACTIONS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:10-cv-4809 (EJD)
CLASS ACTION
NOTICE OF OBJECTION FOR
OBJECTOR KIM MORRISON

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR
ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Class member Kim Morrison, a user of Google search engine during the time
referenced in the notice form of this settlement and a member of this class action
objects to the settlement in this cased based upon the letter attached as Exhibit A.
Kim Morrison 228 Lion Point Boulder CO 80302. Neither Kim Morrison nor
her attorney will appear at the fairness hearing.

1
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Class
 Action
 Notice
 of
 Objection
 Case No. 5:10-cv-4809 (EJD)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document67 Filed08/05/14 Page2 of 7

1
2

Respectfully,

3
4
5

Dated: 8-5-14

LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW KURILICH
By:

/s/Matthew Kurilich

6

Matthew Kurilich, Attorney for Objector

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Class
 Action
 Notice
 of
 Objection
 Case No. 5:10-cv-4809 (EJD)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document67 Filed08/05/14 Page3 of 7

1

EXIBIT A

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Class
 Action
 Notice
 of
 Objection
 Case No. 5:10-cv-4809 (EJD)

EXHIBIT A
Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document67 Filed08/05/14 Page4 of 7
Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation
Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 2002
Chanhassen, MN 55317-2002

OBJECTION FORM

If you intend to file a written objection to the proposed Settlement in In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, Case No.
5:10-cv-4809-EJD, please use this form and mail it to each of the following addresses:
Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation
Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 2002
Chanhassen, MN 55317-2002

Edward D. Johnson
Mayer Brown LLP
Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112

Kassra Nassiri
Nassiri & Jung LLP
47 Kearny Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94108

U.S. District Court
Clerk’s Office
280 S 1st St
San Jose, CA 95113

Your objection must be post-marked by August 8, 2014.

Kim Morrison

I, _______________________________________________, hereby object to the proposed Settlement Class in In re Google
Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, Case No. 5:10-cv-4809-EJD.

First Name

KIM

Last Name

MORRISON

Email Address

[e-mail]
Phone Number

206

Signature

317

3968

Please state the reasons for your objection below. If you need additional space, please attach additional pages.

see attachment

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document67 Filed08/05/14 Page5 of 7

ATTACHMENT TO FORM OBJECTION

!
The settlement is unreasonable and unfair and the proposed benefits are woefully
inadequate. Additionally, the requested attorneys' fees are unreasonable in relation to
the class benefits. This case sets a dangerous precedent for Google and similar online
entities that serve many customers and collect customer information. The Court should
reject both the settlement and requested attorneys' fees.
The settlement provides no real benefit to the class and is inadequate. Google collected
and sold for profit users’ real names, street addresses, phone numbers, credit card
numbers, social security numbers, financial account numbers and more. Google also
disclosed user search queries that may have contained highly-personal and sensitive
issues, such as confidential medical information, racial or ethnic origins, political or
religious beliefs or sexuality. Google subjected the public to various harms, especially
identity theft. Yet, the proposed relief does not address Google's unlawful practices,
which is unfair and unreasonable. The settlement merely requires Google to notify users
of its practices through "Agreed-Upon Disclosures." Because Google is not changing its
business practices, and will continue to engage in practices that subject the public to
great harms, the underlying issues and claims of the lawsuit are not being addressed
and neither the class nor the public receive any real benefit under the settlement.
Google should either cease collecting and disclosing personal and sensitive information
for profit, or develop oversight mechanisms to prevent such disclosures.
The settlement also is unfair and inadequate because (a) Google is not disgorged of its
unlawful profits, and (b) the settlement does not deter defendant's unlawful conduct. The
complaint alleges unjust enrichment as a result of Google's sale of personal information
to third-parties. However, neither the settlement agreement nor the notice provide any
indication as to how much Google profited by selling user information. As a result, there
is no indication whether or not the settlement amount of $8.5 million sufficiently deters
Google's unlawful behavior. Moreover, the class cannot determine whether or not the
settlement amount is a fair compromise in relation to its unlawful profits.

The $1 million notice costs seem unreasonably high. Notice was provided through
publication only and included paid banners, press releases, and a settlement site. None
of the documents available on the settlement website provide details regarding the
notice plan. Why didn't Google include settlement banner ads on Google search results
and similar Google products? Why didn't an email from Google go out to all Google
product users, such as Gmail, Blogger, Youtube, Google Plus, etc.? The same, if not
better, results could have been achieved at a lower cost had Google notified its users
directly and included online banner ad on all search results.
There is no evidence the parties have complied with the requirements of the Class
Action Fairness Act as it relates to providing state and federal authorities with notice of
the settlement. The purpose of CAFA Notice is to provide state and federal authorities
with the opportunity to object to the fairness of the settlement, including cases where

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document67 Filed08/05/14 Page6 of 7

there are large amounts of attorneys' fees but little deterrence for defendants, as in this
case. Because this is a national class action, the class deserves to know whether or not
the appropriate authorities are aware of this settlement.

!

The settlement provides a disproportionately large incentive award to the named
plaintiffs while the class members receive little to no benefits. No document provides an
explanatory justification for the named plaintiffs' award. How much time and effort did
they put in the case, and what risks did they face? The class deserves to know why the
named plaintiffs get $5,000 each while class members receive no money at all.
In light of the above, the settlement’s attorneys’ fees are not reasonable. What is the
meaningful relief for class members?

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document67 Filed08/05/14 Page7 of 7

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2
3
4

I hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served upon the
attorneys of record for each other party through the Court’s electronic filing service
on August 5, 2014.

5
6

/s/Matthew Kurilich
MATTHEW KURILICH

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Class
 Action
 Notice
 of
 Objection
 Case No. 5:10-cv-4809 (EJD)