Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
Google Books Settlement Rejected
By Sarah Pierce
Bad news for those of you who submitted claims for the Google Books class action lawsuit settlement. The settlement has been rejected – for now.
U.S. Federal Judge Denny Chin rejected the Google Books settlement last month, saying the proposed deal goes “too far.”
“While the digitization of books and the creation of a universal digital library would benefit many, the ASA [Amended Settlement Agreement] would simply go too far. It would permit this class action – which was brought against defendant Google Inc. to challenge its scanning of books and display of ’snippets’ for on-line searching – to implement a forward-looking business arrangement that would grant Google significant rights to exploit entire books, without permission of the copyright owners,” wrote Chin. “Indeed, the ASA would give Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission, while releasing claims well beyond those presented in the case.”
Last month’s decision centers on Google’s long-running bid to end a 2005 class action lawsuit in which authors sued Google for scanning millions of books without obtaining copyright permission. Google proposed a $45 million class action settlement that was preliminarily approved by Chin in 2009 that would give copyright holders at least $60 per Principal Work, $15 per Entire Insert and $5 per Partial Insert.
However, when it comes to “orphaned works” (books that are unclaimed), the proposal goes too far, Chin said. Google would be able to scan them, sell them and place up to 20 percent of a title’s words in search results – all without the rights holder’s consent. Chin said “the establishment of a mechanism for exploiting unclaimed books” should be addressed by Congress, not the courts.
Chin also said that the amended Google Books settlement agreement would unfairly penalize authors who had not heard about the settlement because it was an “opt-in” settlement and not an “opt-out” settlement.
“Class members would be giving up certain property rights in their creative works, and they would be deemed– by their silence– to have granted to Google a license to future use of their copyrighted works,” Chin wrote. He urged the parties to consider revising the amended settlement agreement along those lines. Other concerns that prompted his rejection of the Google Books class action settlement were adequacy of class notice, adequacy of class representation, scope of relief, copyright concerns, antitrust concerns, privacy concerns, and international law concerns.
UPDATE: A federal judge ruled Nov. 14, 2013, that Google did not violate copyright law with the Google Books project. The class action lawsuit was dismissed but an appeal is expected to be filed.
All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions