Google was sued in October 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Internet giant allegedly transmitted user search queries to third parties without their knowledge or consent in order to enhance advertising revenue and profitability.
In a letter to Judge Edward J. Davila the groups wrote that the proposed settlement should be rejected because: "(1) it fails to require Google to make any substantive changes to its business practices; (2) it provides no monetary relief to the class; and (3) the proposed cy pres allocations do not meet the Ninth Circuit's requirements for alignment with the interests of class members."
The letter from EPIC, Consumer Watchdog, the Center for Digital Democracy, Patient Privacy Rights, and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse concluded:
"The absence of a benefit to the class combined with the proposed allocation of awards to institutions not aligned with the interests of class members is not accidental. Proposed class counsel, seeking to settle the matter and obtain their fees, have prioritized their own personal financial interests above the interests of the Class. It may serve their interests to have the preliminary settlement approved; it serves the putative Class members not all. For these reasons, the preliminary settlement agreement should be rejected."
"Bad settlements seriously undermine the effectiveness of class action suits in protecting consumers against corporate wrongdoing,? said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's Privacy Project director. "They do nothing but fatten the pockets of the attorneys."
The suit charges that Google shared search queries with third parties without the searchers knowing about it or giving them permission to do so.
The letter noted that the suit was brought under laws that provide statutory damages of as much as $1,000 per violation. "Given the potential statutory damages at stake, the omission of any monetary relief to class members is a glaring deficiency," the letter said.