On October 15, 2026, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a $3,000‑per‑hour fee request in the Google privacy class‑action settlement and applied a $1,600‑per‑hour rate. The order clarifies that attorney‑hourly rates above market norms may be deemed unreasonable under the fee‑shifting statute. Plaintiff counsel receives a reduced fee award, lowering the total payout to the class. The decision places a practical ceiling on partner‑premium rates in future fee petitions.

Full News Breakdown

The fee petition filed by Scott+Scott sought $3,000 per hour for partner David Scott’s services in the $68 million settlement with Google. The court found the rate excessive and recalculated the award using a lower hourly figure.

• Case Name: Scott v. Google LLC

• Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California

• Panel: Single‑judge panel

• Date: October 15, 2026

• Citation: No official reporter citation available (order)

• Statutes Cited: 28 U.S.C. § 1915

• Key Provisions: Section 1915(a) (fee‑shifting authority)

• Primary Legal Issue: Reasonableness of attorney hourly rate in a class‑action fee award

• Petitioner/Plaintiff Arguments: Requested $3,000 per hour for partner services, argued market premium for top‑tier partners

• Court's Reasoning: Rate was “patently unreasonable” compared to prevailing market rates for partners; courts may consider year‑to‑year increases but not to $3,000

• Holding: Reduced fee rate to $1,600 per hour for calculation

• Operative Order: Fee award of $22.6 million calculated at $1,600 per hour

• Practical Outcome: Plaintiffs’ counsel receives lower fee award than originally sought

How Does This Affect You?

Before this order, practitioners lacked a clear benchmark for the maximum hourly rate that courts would deem reasonable in class‑action fee awards. The court now signals that rates substantially above typical partner market levels can be reduced as unreasonable. Fee petitions must be anchored to documented market data, and settlement budgets should anticipate possible downward adjustments. The implications for attorneys, students, and corporate counsel are outlined below.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• Fee petitions that attach contemporaneous billing surveys and limit partner premiums to $1,800‑$2,000 per hour address the court’s heightened scrutiny of rates above that range.

• Separating baseline partner rates from named‑partner premiums and presenting the premium as a distinct line item provides justification under the court’s standard.

• Opposing fee objections that invoke the court’s “patently unreasonable” standard highlight the heightened evidentiary burden for rates exceeding market averages.

• Internal fee‑budget templates that incorporate a contingency factor for a 30‑40 percent reduction in attorney fees reflect the court’s willingness to adjust awards.

• Insurance carriers’ contestation of fee awards based on inflated partner rates prompts a review of policy language concerning “reasonable attorney fees” in class‑action coverage.

For Law Students

The case illustrates that courts apply an objective market‑comparison test when evaluating attorney‑fee reasonableness. The governing doctrine is the reasonableness standard in the fee‑shifting provision of the class‑action statute.

The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

• Civil Procedure – class‑action fee awards

• Evidence – admissibility of billing surveys

• Professional Responsibility – fee‑shifting ethics

• Law and Economics – market‑based pricing of legal services

Comparing this order to Anderson v. St. Francis College, 2020 2d Cir. and Kelley v. United States, 2021 D.D.C. shows how different circuits balance market data against the statutory reasonableness requirement, highlighting the doctrinal tension between premium partner rates and the statutory ceiling.

For Businesses

• Technology firms that adjust settlement calculators to reflect potential caps on attorney‑fee awards at market‑based rates avoid overstating total payout estimates.

• Incorporating a fee‑reduction scenario into class‑action risk assessments and adjusting reserve allocations in financial statements addresses potential under‑funding.

• Policy wordings that reference “reasonable attorney fees” aligned with the court’s market‑norm benchmark reduce the risk of claim denial for excessive fee components.

• Settlement proposals that include a fee‑budget sensitivity analysis modeling a 30 percent reduction support fiduciary compliance with the duty of care.

Key Takeaways

• Courts may deem partner rates that exceed typical market levels unreasonable under the fee‑shifting statute, establishing a concrete ceiling for class‑action fee calculations.

• Attorneys must ground fee requests in documented market data and limit premium partner rates to avoid reductions.

• Judges now have clearer authority to lower fee awards that surpass market norms, increasing judicial oversight of fee petitions.

• Watch the Ninth Circuit’s pending appeal in In re Google Privacy Settlement, expected early 2027, for potential refinement of the reasonableness test.

• In‑house counsel should revise settlement budgeting templates before the next class‑action negotiation deadline to incorporate possible fee‑award reductions.

References

1. United States District Court for the Northern District of California

2. fee‑shifting statute

3. Scott v. Google LLC

4. 28 U.S.C. § 1915

5. Section 1915(a)

6. Anderson v. St. Francis College, 2020 2d Cir.

7. Kelley v. United States, 2021 D.D.C.

8. Ninth Circuit

9. In re Google Privacy Settlement

Source: Federal judge balks at lawyer’s $3K hourly rate