Google: Case settling for a quarter of claimed value
The lawyers and funders of a collective action against Google have agreed to accept payments totalling £100m, some £34m less than they are entitled to, to help settle the claim.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) will next week be asked to approve the settlement of the case brought by class representative Professor Barry Rodger, a competition law academic, that will see UK Android app developers share £160m in damages.
The total settlement of £260m, agreed without any admission of liability by Google, represents around a quarter of what the claim was originally said to be worth.
Professor Rodger alleges that Google used a variety of technical and contractual restrictions to ensure its Play Store is the only place where UK app developers can market or sell apps designed for Android devices.
In his witness statement published ahead of hearing, he said: “Whilst I remain confident in the class’s liability case, and consider that it has good prospects of success at trial, I recognise the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome and, in particular, as to the likely level of damages (which sit on an unusually large spectrum in this case), in any judgment.
“Whether the class would ultimately recover a sum significantly in excess of the settlement sum would depend on the tribunal’s determination of materially disputed issues affecting liability and quantum.
“I took those uncertainties into account in concluding that the settlement sum was just and reasonable.”
In March 2025, the CAT decided that the case should be case-managed with two other claims related to Google’s Play Store conduct – Liz Coll’s case on behalf of UK consumers and Epic Games’ private claim.
Epic’s claim settled earlier this year but the joint trial of the remaining claims was listed to start at the end of this month.
The CAT will be told that, given there is a relatively small number of class members that have substantial claims, take-up of the £160m, at least by value, is expected to be “very high”.
In his witness statement, Geradin partner David Gallagher said the funders and lawyers were together owed around £134m but have agreed to take £100m.
Funder Bench Walk Partners’ capital outlay is £27.7m and it will receive a further £56.2m as its profit. This has been reduced from its entitlement to £82.8m under the terms of the litigation funding agreement.
Professor Rodger said: “I was able to secure Bench Walk’s agreement that it would not insist on its contractual rights where doing so was likely to jeopardise the tribunal’s approval of the settlement or put me in a position where I could no longer act in the best interests of the class.”
He described Bench Walk’s pricing – a multiple of 2.99 of its outlay – as “very much at the lower end” and comparing favourably to funder returns in other collective proceedings.
“Indeed, it appears to be the lowest multiple from a comparison of what is public in other opt-out collective proceedings before the tribunal.”
His after-the-event insurer has agreed a similar reduction in the £6m premium to £4.1m, while the sums owing and to be paid to Professor Rodger’s solicitors, Geradin Partners, and counsel team led by Robert O’Donoghue KC, were redacted from the information put in the public domain.
But they will share the remaining £12m of the pot of money put aside for advisers, and have agreed to accept 32% less than they are due.
Mr Gallagher explained that Bench Walk originally committed £16.5m to the case but was twice asked to increase its backing; in return “Geradin Partners was required to move to a substantially increased level of fee deferral under its conditional fee arrangements”.
Professor Rodger told the CAT: “The proceedings could not have been pursued on their present scale without substantial funding and professional work being provided at risk.”