Google agrees to $100M settlement to end AdWords class action

UPDATE:

• Google has agreed to pay $100 million to resolve a long-running class action lawsuit that accused the tech company of overcharging advertisers for its AdWords service.
• On March 27, groups of advertisers asked a California federal judge to approve the Google AdWords settlement. They said this would provide a “significant benefit” to class members while avoiding the risks and costs of an impending trial.
• The lawsuit was originally filed in March 2011 and alleged that Google secretly overcharged advertisers for its AdWords service. 
• The plaintiffs also claimed Google made “preferential secret deals” that benefitted the large companies that hosted the ads.
• The Google AdWords class action was dismissed and amended multiple times before the Ninth Circuit revived the case in January 2021. 

Google Inc. was hit with a class action lawsuit by a group of businesses, alleging that the internet giant overcharged companies for its AdWords advertising service, and they are asking a California federal judge to sanction Google because the company is refusing to give plaintiffs information from its database in a format that the plaintiffs can use in their lawsuit.

U.S. Distirct Court Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd ordered Google to give the plaintiffs descriptions and details to better understand the parts of the AdWords’ database that is relevant to the class action lawsuit, but Google has failed to do so.

Google was also obligated to pay the attorney fees the plaintiffs would incur from the discovery dispute, which the internet giant still needs to do, as well.

The plaintiffs claim that the information Google did provide was “woefully incomplete and misleading,” and that the internet company is trying to deceive them, attorney Brad Seidel wrote in the Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Violating Court Order.

According to the motion, the “plaintiff repeatedly requested through emails, letters, and conference calls that Google describe the data it possesses (including lists of the fields), as Plaintiff had no way to meaningfully discuss the narrowing data request without information about the data Google has in its possession.”

However, “Google simply delayed” saying that “it would — at some future point — discuss further and ultimately provided only sample reports with incomplete or broken data.”

The plaintiff’s attorney claims that after waiting a response for several months, “Google identified two areas in which it stores data (‘log files’ and ‘data tables’),” which it did so in two letters filed in June and July 2013, in which Google claimed included ‘”the fields that may contain relevant data and general descriptions’ for Smart Pricing and Location Targeting database tables.'”

But the plaintiffs allege that “Google did not provide any data for the fields it had identified in the letters. Furthermore, Google did not provide any information about what data is available in the log files.”

The motion accuses Google of engaging in “abusive tactics and outright lies about the data,” which is why Woods has filed this motion.

“Google’s counsel stated: ‘Google is unaware of additional reports that it could run regarding Mr. Woods’ . . . transactions that are not available to Mr. Woods,'” Seidel wrote.

This statement, the plaintiff alleges is “patently false.”

The motion explains that “Google’s documentation production confirmed the massive amount of relevant click data Google was hiding from plaintiff in a concentrated effort to avoid revealing the severity of harm Google caused to plaintiff and the putative class.”

Woods and his attorney allege that Google seems to be avoiding addressing the relevant questions that pertain to the case.

“The two critical issues in this case are: (1) whether Google applied Smart Pricing to particular Display Network properties; and (2) whether Google distributed ads outside advertisers’ targeted geographic areas.”

Woods “discovered a secret field tracked in Google’s databases that allows Google to turn Smart Pricing on or off with the flip of a switch.”

But this is the information that Woods and his attorney claim “is noticeably omitted from Google’s letters purporting to provide all relevant fields of Smart Pricing and Location Targeting.”

Woods is represented by Jeffery J. Angelovich, Brad E. Seidel and others of Nix Patterson & Roach LLP and by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

Google is represented by Edward D. Johnson, Eric Evans and others at Mayer Brown LLP.

The Google AdWords Class Action Lawsuit is Rick Woods v. Google Inc., Case No. 5:11-cv-01263, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Class action accuses Amazon of ‘greenwashing’ its paper products
• Albertsons, Safeway class action lawsuit filed over unsolicited text messages
• Evenflo to pay $3.5M settlement to end booster seat safety lawsuits
• Benadryl recalls 2K bottles due to a lack of child-resistant packaging