Judge rejects lawyers' preemptive fee bid in Google ad tech class action

By Mike Scarcella

WASHINGTON, March 20 (Reuters) - A judge in New York has denied a bid by lawyers in a class action against Alphabet's GOOGL.O Google to force rival attorneys to pay them a portion of fees from future settlements with the tech giant in individual lawsuits over its advertising practices.

U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel said in an order on Thursday that the class attorneys from Boies Schiller Flexner and other firms made “greatly exaggerated” claims that lawyers bringing individual lawsuits were free-riding on their efforts in the litigation.

Both groups of lawyers represent publishers that accuse Google of abusing its market power for online advertising technology and overcharging them in violation of federal antitrust law. It has denied any wrongdoing.

Castel in December certified the publishers' lawsuit as a class action and appointed law firms Boies Schiller, Korein Tillery, and Berger Montague to represent the class on behalf of The Nation, Genius Media Group, and other publications. Competing law firm Kellogg Hansen represents Daily Mail, Gannett, and other publishers in individual lawsuits.

In response to the mounting individual cases, Boies and the other lawyers appointed to represent the class last month sought a "set-aside order" of 10% of any settlements or judgments, arguing they deserved compensation for work that benefited all publishers, including those pursuing individual actions.

Google and lawyers for the publisher class did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Lawyers for the individual publishers declined to comment.

Settlements or judgments in the case could mean tens of millions of dollars in legal fees for the publishers' lawyers. Kellogg Hansen told the court that its publisher clients incurred billions of dollars in damages due to Google's alleged monopoly over online display advertising.

Kellogg Hansen said in a court filing last month that the proposed 10% set-aside was an "exorbitant fee" that served only as a deterrent from publishers deciding whether to opt out of the class action.

Google had urged Castel to reject issuing any set-aside order, saying it would hinder reaching settlements and “encourage squabbling among plaintiffs’ counsel, miring both the court and Google in unnecessary disputes.”

Castel, in his decision on Thursday, said, "it is logical that a plaintiff with a large claim may prefer to pursue that claim individually." He said Daily Mail and Gannett had contributed substantially to the litigation.

The judge noted that the class attorneys let the competing plaintiffs' attorneys use their offices for witness questioning. He said learning "months after the fact that the unspoken price of hospitality is a freeze and potential forfeiture of 10 percent of the client's gross recovery is more than a bit rich."

The case is In re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 1:21-md-03010-PKC.

For publishers class: David Boies and Philip Korologos of Boies Schiller Flexner; George Zelcs and Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery; Eric Cramer and Robert Litan of Berger Montague

For Daily Mail and other publishers: John Thorne and Daniel Bird of Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick

For Google: Justina Sessions and Eric Mahr of Freshfields, and Craig Reiser of Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider

Read more:

Google must face consumer antitrust lawsuit over search dominance, US judge rules

US appeals court rejects RNC lawsuit claiming Google email spam filters harmed fundraising

Google defends AI search summaries in Rolling Stone publisher's lawsuit

Google fights Rumble’s bid to disqualify US judge over lawyer friendship