Frank v. Gaos

The case asked whether a class action settlement in a privacy suit against Google could send money only to cy pres recipients instead of directly to class members. The Supreme Court did not answer that question; it set aside the Ninth Circuit's approval and sent the case back to examine whether the named plaintiffs had standing (the right to sue) under Spokeo.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court vacated the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back to consider whether any named plaintiff had standing under Spokeo; the prompt does not provide a vote count or lineup.

“whether any of the named plaintiffs has standing to sue in light of our decision in Spokeo”

The decision mattered because it paused a major fight over class action settlements that give no cash directly to affected people. For example, people in online privacy cases and companies negotiating settlements now know courts may first need to confirm the named plaintiffs can sue at all.

The case went back to the lower courts to decide whether any named plaintiff had standing under Spokeo. If they did, the courts could then revisit whether the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The fight was over a Google privacy settlement that paid only cy pres recipients, not class members directly. The Court instead focused first on standing.

It affects whether people in privacy class actions may see direct payments or only indirect benefits. It also shows a case can stall if the named plaintiffs lack standing.

The justices sent the case back to the lower courts. Those courts had to decide whether any named plaintiff had standing before revisiting the settlement.