The Google referrer header privacy settlement is a $23 million class action resolution covering U.S. users whose Google Search queries were passed to third-party websites through their browsers between October 25, 2006, and September 30, 2013. After the U.S. Supreme Court sent an earlier $8.5 million version of the deal back to the lower courts, the parties renegotiated, and claimants who filed by the deadline received payments of roughly $7.70 starting in late January 2024.
What Google Was Accused of Doing
When you clicked a link on a Google results page, your browser sent the destination site an HTTP referrer header identifying the page you came from. Because your search query sat inside that URL, the site you landed on could read exactly what you had typed into Google. Plaintiffs said those queries sometimes contained names, home addresses, Social Security numbers, and medical questions, and that the disclosure happened silently, with no notice and no way to prevent it.
Google addressed the underlying problem outside of court. It began encrypting search traffic for logged-in users in 2011, which stripped query strings from the referrer, and Chrome later changed its default so cross-site requests transmit only the origin domain.
The Legal Claims
Three named plaintiffs sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, bringing five causes of action: violation of the federal Stored Communications Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.1Justia Case Law. In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, No. 15-15858 (9th Cir. 2017) The Stored Communications Act was the centerpiece. It prohibits knowingly divulging the contents of electronic communications to third parties and gives affected individuals a private right of action with a statutory minimum of $1,000 per violation.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 2707 – Civil Action
The contract claims relied on Google’s privacy policy and terms of service, which plaintiffs said promised not to share search queries with unrelated third parties. The unjust enrichment claim alleged Google profited from user data it had no right to disclose.
The First Settlement and Why It Fell Apart
The parties initially agreed that Google would pay $8.5 million. None of that money was set aside for direct payments to class members. The district court accepted the parties’ position that the cost of finding and paying roughly 129 million people would exceed the total benefit, so the fund was distributed cy pres to six organizations doing internet privacy research and education, with the rest going to class counsel fees and expenses. Google also agreed to update its FAQ and Key Terms pages to explain how queries could leak through the referrer header.
An objector, Ted Frank, argued that a settlement paying millions to universities and nonprofits while paying the class nothing was not fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Ninth Circuit affirmed approval in August 2017, and the Supreme Court took the case to decide whether cy pres-only settlements can satisfy Rule 23.
What the Supreme Court Did in Frank v. Gaos
The Court did not answer the cy pres question. In a per curiam opinion on March 20, 2019, it vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded on a different issue: whether the three named plaintiffs had Article III standing at all. The Court pointed to its 2016 decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which held that a bare statutory violation is not automatically a concrete injury. Because the district court had never analyzed standing under Spokeo, the Supreme Court told the lower courts to address that threshold question first.3Supreme Court of the United States. Frank v. Gaos
Justice Thomas dissented, writing that the arrangement gave the class no meaningful relief and failed several requirements of Rule 23.3Supreme Court of the United States. Frank v. Gaos The practical effect of the remand was that the original deal did not survive. The parties returned to negotiations and produced a materially better one.
The Revised $23 Million Settlement
The renegotiated common fund totals $23 million. Unlike the first version, it pays the class directly: more than $16 million was set aside for cash distributions to claimants. The remainder covers administrative costs and court-approved attorney fees, with class counsel requesting up to 25% of the fund. Google admitted no wrongdoing. The commitment to revise Google’s public FAQ and Key Terms pages, explaining how and when search queries can be disclosed through the referrer header, carried over from the earlier deal.
Who Qualified
You were a class member if you used Google Search in the United States, entered a query, and clicked a result at least once between October 25, 2006, and September 30, 2013.1Justia Case Law. In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, No. 15-15858 (9th Cir. 2017) That seven-year window covers the period when Google’s results pages routinely passed full query strings in the referrer header. The class was estimated at roughly 129 million users. Eligibility required only the claimant’s own sworn statement that they performed a qualifying search; the administrator did not require browsing records or search history.
Claim Deadline, Payment Amount, and Timing
Claim forms had to be submitted by July 31, 2023, either online through the official settlement website or by mail to the settlement administrator, Kroll Settlement Administration. The form asked for current contact information and required attestation under penalty of perjury. The same July 31 deadline applied to exclusion requests and objections. Class members who did not opt out released all claims arising from the referrer header disclosures, known or unknown, up to the date of preliminary approval, including the Stored Communications Act, contract, and unjust enrichment claims.4Supreme Court of the United States. Petition Appendix – In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation Settlement The release did not extend to unrelated privacy claims or conduct outside the class period.
The district court held a final fairness hearing on October 12, 2023, and granted final approval on October 16, 2023. The administrator then calculated each claimant’s pro rata share by dividing the net fund by the number of approved claims. Payments of about $7.70 went out in late January 2024, distributed by PayPal or physical check. A small second-round distribution of roughly $0.12 per claimant followed in mid-2024, reflecting residual funds after administrative costs were finalized.
Are the Payments Taxable
Yes, technically. Under Internal Revenue Code Section 61, settlement payments are taxable income unless a specific exclusion applies. The main exclusion, at Section 104(a)(2), covers damages for personal physical injuries or physical sickness. Privacy violations are non-physical, so payments from this settlement are taxable.5Internal Revenue Service. Tax Implications of Settlements and Judgments
In practice, the impact is minimal. Settlement administrators issue a Form 1099-MISC only for payments of $600 or more,6Internal Revenue Service. About Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Information so no one received a 1099 for a payment under $8. The income remains reportable on your return, but the amount involved is negligible.