3 ms·
Even then, the interesting part doesn't even seem to be in this article. Read the WSJ article for more clarity[1]. The issue raised was that the "privacy non-p
by cosmie 8y ago
Even then, the interesting part doesn't even seem to be in this article. Read the WSJ article for more clarity[1].
The issue raised was that the "privacy non-profits" were 1) law schools that the plaintiff's attorneys went to, or 2) non-profits that Google already consistently donated money to. So it's a settlement that predominantly consisted of altering the timing of regular donations by Google plus a kickback to the attorney's law schools.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-will-take-a-closer-look-at-class-actions-1525123346 https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-will-take-a-close...
- mark212 8y agothat's not true. The recipients weren't law schools (unless AARP is now running a law school), though a couple of the lawyers on the plaintiffs' side did have some affiliation with the parent institutions of the privacy projects getting the money. In fact, one judge on the three-judge Ninth Circuit panel dissented and thought the case should be sent back down to the trial judge to have an evidentiary hearing on those connections, just to be sure the lawyers weren't profiting in some way.