加利福尼亚州的一名联邦法官暂时驳回了消费者维权律师们的请求。这些律师代表消费者起诉 Alphabet 旗下的谷歌公司，指控其 Play 商店的运营方式存在不当行为。他们原本希望从这笔 6.3 亿美元的和解金中获得 8500 万美元作为律师费，但法官认为这些律师未能提供足够的证明材料来证明这笔费用的合理性。
A federal judge in California has rejected for now a request by lawyers for consumers who sued Alphabet's (GOOGL.O) Google over its Play Store practices to collect $85 million in legal fees from a $630 million settlement, saying the attorneys failed to provide sufficient records to justify the award.
周四，旧金山的美国地方法官詹姆斯·多纳托在裁决中指出，这些律师未能提交足够详细的计费记录；他称这些材料“完全缺乏能够说明在诉讼过程中具体完成了哪些工作及其目的的相关信息”。
US District Judge James Donato in San Francisco in a ruling on Thursday said the lawyers failed to submit adequately detailed billing records, describing the material as "utterly lacking in information demonstrating what work was done and for what purpose" in the litigation.
多纳托还对这笔和解金是否完全由这些消费者维权律师促成提出了质疑。他指出，实际上有代表全美 50 个州及其他政府机构的律师都参与了促成该和解协议的诉讼过程。
Donato also questioned whether the consumer lawyers alone were responsible for obtaining the settlement, noting that attorneys representing all 50 states and other government entities participated in the litigation that led to the deal.
“此次申请律师费的律师远非促成这笔 6.3 亿美元和解金的唯一功臣，”多纳托说道，“美国各州及相应的政府机构均有律师参与了促成和解的诉讼工作。”法官还给予原告方另一次机会，让他们能够拿出更有说服力的证据以争取获得这笔费用。
"The lawyers asking for fees here were far from the only attorneys who worked to obtain the $630 million common fund settlement," Donato said. “Every state and equivalent entity in the Union had attorneys who participated in the litigation leading to the settlement.”The judge gave the plaintiffs another chance to persuade him to award them fees.
负责此案的消费者维权律师——来自巴特利特·贝克律师事务所的卡玛·朱利亚内利以及来自卡普兰·福克斯与基尔希默律师事务所的哈·宋南——并未立即回应相关置评请求。谷歌方面同样未立即作出回应。
The lead consumer attorneys, Karma Giulianelli of Bartlit Beck and Hae Sung Nam of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Google also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
此前，消费者指控谷歌通过限制安卓设备上的应用分发以及收取应用内交易费用等方式，向 Play 商店的用户收取了过高的费用。
Google was accused of overcharging Play Store customers through restrictions on app distribution on Android devices and fees for in-app transactions.
2023年，谷歌同意向消费者和解基金支付 6.3 亿美元，另向由各州管理的专项基金缴纳 7000 万美元。不过谷歌始终坚称自己并未有任何违规行为。
The company agreed in 2023 to pay $630 million into a consumer settlement fund and $70 million into a separate fund managed by states. Google denied wrongdoing.
此次申请的律师费数额相当于为补偿消费者而设立的 6.3 亿美元基金总额的 13.5%。
The requested award amounted to 13.5% of the $630 million fund established to compensate consumers.
领先的消费者律师朱利安内利和纳姆在12月的法庭文件中表示，原告团队在诉讼上投入了近10万小时，并认为他们的“巨大”努力促成了和解，因此所请求的补偿是合理的。
Lead consumer attorneys Giulianelli and Nam in a court filing in December said the plaintiffs' team devoted nearly 100,000 hours to the litigation and argued that their "enormous" efforts helped secure the settlement, making the requested compensation reasonable.
谈判达成和解的主要州——加利福尼亚州、纽约州、北卡罗来纳州、田纳西州和犹他州——未对消费者律师的具体费用金额表示支持。但这些州也没有对消费者律师的请求提出异议。
The lead states that negotiated the settlement — California, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee and Utah — did not back any specific fee amount for the consumers' lawyers. But the states also did not object to the consumer lawyers' request.
该消费者案件曾是一起集体诉讼，但多纳托后来在裁定原告无法依赖经济学家的关键证词后，将其解除集体诉讼资格。
The consumer case was once a class action, but Donato later decertified it after he ruled that the plaintiffs could not rely on key testimony from an economist.
该案件为：In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation，美国加利福尼亚北区地方法院，案号3:21-cv-05227-JD。
The case is In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, US District Court, Northern District of California, No. 3:21-cv-05227-JD.
代表消费者原告：Bartlit Beck律师事务所的Karma Giulianelli，以及Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer律师事务所的Hae Sung Nam。代表谷歌：Munger, Tolles & Olson律师事务所的Glenn Pomerantz；Liu Shur Kravis律师事务所的Jonathan Kravis；以及Morgan, Lewis & Bockius律师事务所的Brian Rocca。法官称每小时3000美元的费率“明显不合理”，因律师计费飙升。
AT&T集体诉讼的原告律师赢得5900万美元法律费用奖励。在28亿美元蓝十字和解后，竞争律师因费用问题发生冲突。谷歌隐私集体诉讼的法官判给律师1.47亿美元法律费用。Motley Rice律师事务所在新墨西哥州的Meta案件费用可能超过6700万美元。
For consumer plaintiffs: Karma Giulianelli of Bartlit Beck, and Hae Sung Nam of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer For Google: Glenn Pomerantz of Munger, Tolles & Olson; Jonathan Kravis of Liu Shur Kravis; and Brian Rocca of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Judge calls $3,000 hourly rate 'patently unreasonable' as lawyer billing soars Plaintiffs’ lawyers in AT&T class actions win $59 million legal fee award Rival lawyers clash over fees after $2.8 billion Blue Cross settlement Judge in Google privacy class action awards lawyers $147 million in legal fees Law firm Motley Rice's fee for Meta case in New Mexico could top $67 million