Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam. |
| Citation | 139 S.Ct. 1041,203 L.Ed.2d 404 |
| Parties | Theodore H. FRANK, et al., Petitioners v. Paloma GAOS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al. |
| Docket Number | No. 17-961 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 2019 |
139 S.Ct. 1041
203 L.Ed.2d 404
Theodore H. FRANK, et al., Petitioners
v.
Paloma GAOS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al.
No. 17-961
Supreme Court of the United States.
March 20, 2019
Kassra P. Nassiri, Nassiri & Jung LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents.
Theodore H. Frank, Melissa Holyoak, Anna St. John, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.
Kassra P. Nassiri, Nassiri & Jung LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey A. Lamken, Michael G. Pattillo, Jr., James A. Barta, William J. Cooper, MoloLamken LLP, Washington, DC, Michael Aschenbrener, KamberLaw, LLC, Denver, CO, Jordan A. Rice, MoloLamken LLP, Chicago, IL, for Respondents.
Randall W. Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jed W. Glickstein, Samantha C. Booth, Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL, Donald M. Falk, Edward D. Johnson, Mayer Brown LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Brian D. Netter, Daniel E. Jones, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondent Google LLC.
Per Curiam.
Three named plaintiffs brought class action claims against Google for alleged violations of the Stored Communications Act. The parties negotiated a settlement agreement that would require Google to include certain disclosures on some of its webpages and would distribute more than $ 5 million to cy pres recipients, more than $ 2 million to class counsel, and no money to absent class members. We granted certiorari to review whether such cy pres settlements satisfy the requirement that class settlements be "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(e)(2). Because there remain substantial questions about whether any of the named plaintiffs has standing to sue in light of our decision in
Spokeo , Inc. v. Robins , 578 U. S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016), we vacate the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remand for further proceedings.
Google operates an Internet search engine. The search engine allows users to search for a word or phrase by typing a query into the Google website. Google returns a list of webpages that are relevant to the indicated term or phrase. The complaints alleged that when an Internet user conducted a Google search and clicked on a hyperlink to open one of the webpages listed on the search results page, Google transmitted information including the terms of the search to the server that hosted the selected webpage. This so-called referrer header told the server that the user arrived at the webpage by searching for particular terms on Google's website.
Paloma Gaos challenged Google's use of referrer headers. She filed a complaint in Federal District Court on behalf of herself and a putative class of people who conducted a Google search and clicked on any of the resulting links within a certain time period. Gaos alleged that Google's transmission of users' search terms in referrer headers violated the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. The SCA prohibits "a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public" from "knowingly divulg[ing] to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service." § 2702(a)(1). The Act also creates a private right of action that entitles any "person aggrieved by any violation" to "recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate." § 2707(a). Gaos also asserted several state law claims.
Google moved to dismiss for lack of standing three times. Its first attempt was successful. The District Court reasoned that although "a plaintiff may establish standing through allegations of violation of a statutory right," Gaos had "failed to plead facts sufficient to support a claim for violation of her statutory rights." Gaos v. Google, Inc. , 2011 WL 7295480, *3 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 7, 2011). In particular, the court faulted Gaos for failing to plead "that she clicked on a link from the Google search page." Ibid.
After Gaos filed an amended complaint, Google again moved to dismiss. That second attempt was partially successful. The District Court dismissed Gaos' state law claims, but denied the motion as to her SCA claims. The court reasoned that because the SCA created a right to be free from the unlawful disclosure of certain communications, and because Gaos alleged a violation of the SCA that was specific to her (i.e. , based on a search she conducted), Gaos alleged a concrete and particularized injury. Gaos v. Google Inc. , 2012 WL 1094646, *4 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 29, 2012). The court rested that conclusion on Edwards v. First American Corp. , 610 F.3d 514 (2010) —a Ninth Circuit decision reasoning that an Article III injury exists whenever a statute gives an individual a statutory cause of action and the plaintiff claims that the defendant violated the statute. 2012 WL 1094646, *3.
After the District Court ruled on Google's second motion to dismiss, we granted certiorari in Edwards to address whether an alleged statutory violation alone can support standing. First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards , 564 U.S. 1018, 131 S.Ct. 3022, 180 L.Ed.2d 843 (2011). In the meantime, Gaos and an additional named plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against Google. Google once again moved to dismiss. Google argued that the named plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their SCA claims because they had failed to allege facts establishing a cognizable
injury. Google recognized that the District Court had previously relied on Edwards to find standing based on the alleged violation of a statutory right. But because this Court had agreed to review Edwards , Google explained that it would continue to challenge the District Court's conclusion. We eventually dismissed Edwards as improvidently granted, 567 U.S. 756, 132 S.Ct. 2536, 183 L.Ed.2d 611 (2012) (per curiam ), and Google then withdrew its argument that Gaos lacked standing for the SCA claims.
Gaos' putative class action was consolidated with a similar complaint, and the parties negotiated a classwide settlement. The terms of their agreement required Google to include certain disclosures about referrer headers on three of its webpages. Google could, however, continue its practice of transmitting users' search terms in referrer headers. Google also agreed to pay $ 8.5 million. None of those funds would be distributed to absent class members. Instead, most of the money would be distributed to six cy pres recipients. In the class action context, cy pres refers to the practice of distributing settlement funds not amenable to individual claims or meaningful pro rata distribution to nonprofit organizations whose work is determined to indirectly benefit class members. Black's Law Dictionary 470 (10th ed. 2014). In this case, the cy pres recipients were selected by class counsel and Google to "promote public awareness and education, and/or to support research, development, and initiatives, related...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Munoz v. PHH Mortg. Corp., No. 1:08-cv-00759-DAD-BAM
...at 43.)In Edwards v. First Am. Corp. , 610 F.3d 514, 518 (9th Cir. 2010) (" Edwards I "), abrogated by Frank v. Gaos , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 1044, 203 L.Ed.2d 404 (2019), the Ninth Circuit held that "[b]ecause RESPA gives Plaintiff a statutory cause of action, ... Plaintiff has st......
-
Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., No. 16-16486 & 16-16783
...court is "powerless to approve a proposed class settlement" if "no named plaintiff has standing." Frank v. Gaos , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 1046, 203 L.Ed.2d 404 (2019). Our inquiry becomes narrower as we move down the standing decision tree; injury is the only element we need to cons......
-
Williams v. Seidenbach, 18-31159
...footnotes omitted). That's why we don't let parties stipulate away jurisdictional defects. See, e.g. , Frank v. Gaos , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 1046, 203 L.Ed.2d 404 (2019) (per curiam) (noting that, even when parties agree to settle, a court may not exercise the judicial power while......
-
Earl v. The Boeing Co., Civil Action 4:19-cv-507
...i. Evidentiary Burden at Class Certification “[F]ederal courts lack jurisdiction if no named plaintiff has standing.” Frank v. Gaos, 139 S.Ct. 1041, 1046 (2019) (per curiam). At “successive stages of the litigation, ” a named plaintiff bears an escalating burden to demonstrate standing. Luj......
-
Munoz v. PHH Mortg. Corp., No. 1:08-cv-00759-DAD-BAM
...at 43.)In Edwards v. First Am. Corp. , 610 F.3d 514, 518 (9th Cir. 2010) (" Edwards I "), abrogated by Frank v. Gaos , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 1044, 203 L.Ed.2d 404 (2019), the Ninth Circuit held that "[b]ecause RESPA gives Plaintiff a statutory cause of action, ... Plaintiff has st......
-
Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., No. 16-16486 & 16-16783
...court is "powerless to approve a proposed class settlement" if "no named plaintiff has standing." Frank v. Gaos , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 1046, 203 L.Ed.2d 404 (2019). Our inquiry becomes narrower as we move down the standing decision tree; injury is the only element we need to cons......
-
Williams v. Seidenbach, 18-31159
...footnotes omitted). That's why we don't let parties stipulate away jurisdictional defects. See, e.g. , Frank v. Gaos , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 1046, 203 L.Ed.2d 404 (2019) (per curiam) (noting that, even when parties agree to settle, a court may not exercise the judicial power while......
-
Earl v. The Boeing Co., Civil Action 4:19-cv-507
...i. Evidentiary Burden at Class Certification “[F]ederal courts lack jurisdiction if no named plaintiff has standing.” Frank v. Gaos, 139 S.Ct. 1041, 1046 (2019) (per curiam). At “successive stages of the litigation, ” a named plaintiff bears an escalating burden to demonstrate standing. Luj......
-
Eleventh Circuit Vacates Class Certification and Settlement Based on Lack of Standing for Class Members
...whether it had subject matter jurisdiction under Article III. Considering the Supreme Court’s opinion in Frank v. Gaos, — U.S. –, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019), the Eleventh Circuit held even at the settlement stage of a class action, there must be Article III standing. Further, under the findings......
-
Eleventh Circuit Holds that All Class Members Must Have Standing Under Circuit Law to Recover Individual Damages
...not raise the issue of standing, but the Eleventh Circuit did so sua sponte. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019), and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), the Eleventh Circuit held that all individuals within the class definition, ......
-
Interesting Cy Pres Appeal
...distributions plain – we hate them. We had hopes that the United States Supreme Court would deep six the whole concept in Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019), but as we guessed here, lack of standing was another dispositive ground, and unfortunately for our hopes that was the ground the C......
-
DISCOVERY AS REGULATION.
...-comply-with-europe-s-new-data-law [https://perma.cc/Z7AR-VECG]. (430.) See e.g., Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (431.) Yun-chien Chang & Daniel Kierman, Settlement Rates Around the World tbl.l (Jan. 27,2020) (unpublished manuscript) (on file with the Michigan Law Review). (432.) Yeazel......
-
PRIVACY QUI TAM.
...Will Predominate?, 47 LOY. L.A. L.REV. 505, 506(2014). (287) Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 342-43 (2016). (288) Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 1043-44 (2019) (per curiam). (289) Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 140 S. Ct. 1615, 1619 (2020). (290) Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC, 687 F.......
-
GETTING INTO COURT WHEN THE DATA HAS GOTTEN OUT: A TWO-PART FRAMEWORK.
...supra note 81; see also supra note 17. (115.) See Solove & Citron, supra note 81; Pritzker, supra note 81. (116.) See Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 1046 (2019) (remanding to the district court for factual determination of whether or not the Spokeo test was satisfied without clarifying......