Rodriguez v. Google LLC
3
20-cv-04688-RS (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2024)
Class 2: All individuals who, during the
Class Period (a) had their “Web & App
Activity” and/or “supplemental Web &
App Activity” setting turned off and (b)
whose activity on a non-Google-branded
mobile app was still transmitted to Google,
from (c) a mobile device running a nonAndroid operating system, because of the
Firebase SDK and/or Google Mobile Ads
SDK.
the Ipsos Screenwise Panel. The baseline
compensation to participants was $3 per device
per month, so Lasinski applied a one-time $3
payment to the number of Class Member Devices,
totaling $486.0 million approximately. Id. Google
filed a Daubert motion as to Lasinski's opinions.
Class Cert. Mot. at 1. To support their motion,
Plaintiffs proffer the opinion of Lasinski, the
Senior Managing Director at Ankura Consulting
Group (“Ankura”) and head of the Intellectual
Property group. Lasinski's report calculates classwide damages for Plaintiffs' proposed classes
under two damages theories, one based on unjust
enrichment to Google, and another based on actual
damages to Plaintiffs. Under the unjust enrichment
theory, Lasinski provides calculations for two
damage scenarios. Lasinski's first model,
“Scenario One,” provides for damages equal to
“the portion of Google's U.S. App Promo,
AdMob, and Ad Manager app ads revenues and
profits attributable to Google's collection, saving,
and/or use of WAA/sWAA-Off Data for purposes
of tracking advertising conversions” which he
calculates to be approximately $558.8 million.
Lasinski Rep. 1. Alternatively, Lasinski provides a
second model, “Scenario Two,” which *3
calculates damages equal to “the portion of
Google's U.S. App Promo, AdMob, and Ad
Manager app ads revenues and profits attributable
to Google's collection, saving, and/or use of
WAA/sWAA-Off Data for purposes of serving and
monetizing
advertisements”
totaling
1
approximately $664.3 million. Id. Lasinski also
of traffic acquisition costs from App
calculated actual damages for the proposed classes
as the value to an individual knowingly to
surrender their choice to keep their app data
private and allow an organization to track their
data. Id. at 2. Lasinski estimated damages based
on baseline monthly compensation provided to
participants in a Google consumer research study,
1 According to Lasinski, “[t]hese Scenario
One
and
approximately
Two
amounts
5.27%
and
represent
6.27%,
respectively, of Google's U.S. revenues net
Promo, AdMob, and Ad Manager for apps”
between July 1, 2016 and December 31,
2022.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Class Certification
Class actions are governed by Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To obtain class
certification, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing
they have met each of the four requirements of
Rule 23(a) and at least one subsection of Rule
23(b). Zinser v. Accufix Rsch. Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d
1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001), amended by 273 F.3d
1266 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs must establish
these requirements by a preponderance of the
evidence. Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative,
Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 31 F.4th 651, 665
(9th Cir. 2022) (en banc).
4
Class certification is proper if four conditions are
met: “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable; (2) there are
questions of law or fact common to the class; (3)
the claims or defenses of the representative parties
are typical of the claims or defenses of the class;
and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). These requirements are
commonly
referred
to
as
numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation, respectively. Mazza v. Am. Honda
Motor Co., Inc., *4 666 F.3d 581, 588 (9th Cir.
2012).
2