Doe v. GoodRx Holdings, Inc. et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of
 California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JANE DOE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-00501-AMO
ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 261
“This,” to quote Judge Vince Chhabria, “is [yet] another pixel case.” Doe I v. Google
LLC, 741 F. Supp. 3d 828, 836 (N.D. Cal. 2024). Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement. This is the second application for preliminary approval
of a class settlement in this case. See Dkt. No. 220. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for
decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for January 22, 2026, is VACATED.
See Civil L.R. 7-6, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 78(b). Having read the parties’ papers and carefully
considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause lacking, the Court
DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion, for the following reasons.
I. BACKGROUND
The Court largely assumes familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this case
for purposes of this order. At this stage, Plaintiffs Jane Doe, Jane Doe II, John Doe, E.C., Jose
Marquez, and Hollis Wilson (“Plaintiffs”) announce that they have reached a settlement on behalf
of themselves and a putative class with Defendants GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (“GoodRx”) and
Case 3:23-cv-00501-AMO Document 267 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 5

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Criteo Corp. (“Criteo”).1 See Fisher Decl., Ex. 1 (Dkt. No. 261-4, the “Settlement Agreement”).
The Settlement Agreement contemplates payment of $32 million to a settlement class of
approximately 54.8 million people. See generally id. The proposed settlement is the second to be
considered by the Court in this case – the Court denied an earlier motion for preliminary approval
of class settlement with GoodRx. See Dkt. No. 220 (initial motion for preliminary approval of
settlement); Dkt. No. 231 (minutes of hearing where Court denied motion on the record).
II. DISCUSSION
A class action settlement must be fair, adequate, and reasonable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2).
Where, as here, parties reach an agreement before class certification, “courts must peruse the
proposed compromise to ratify both the propriety of the certification and the fairness of the
settlement.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir. 2003). In determining whether a
settlement agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable to all concerned, courts generally consider
the following factors:
(1) the strength of the plaintiff’s case; (2) the risk, expense,
complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of
maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount
offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the
stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel;
(7) the presence of a governmental participant; and (8) the reaction
of the class members of the proposed settlement.
In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Churchill
Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004)). “[T]he decision to approve or reject a
[class] settlement is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge because [s]he is exposed
to the litigants, and their strategies, positions and proof.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d
1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This Court has made
clear that, in making this assessment, it relies on the Northern District of California’s Procedural
Guidance for Class Action Settlements (the “Guidance”). See Civil Standing Order § K.
1 Like the first, this second proposed settlement does not involve the other two Defendants
involved in the case, Meta Platforms, Inc., and Google, LLC. Criteo, by contrast, has joined
GoodRx in seeking to settle Plaintiffs’ claims against it.
Case 3:23-cv-00501-AMO Document 267 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 5

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
At the June 13, 2025 hearing on Plaintiffs’ first motion for preliminary approval of
settlement, the Court listed several deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ proposed settlement and associated
submissions. See, e.g., Fisher Decl. ¶ 16 (identifying several of the defects identified by the
Court). The Court identified problems including the settlement class definition, the breadth of the
release to be conferred by class members, and the size of the settlement fund. While the parties
have sweetened the pot in this most recent proposed settlement by adding another settling
Defendant, they have largely failed to address the Court’s previously-identified concerns.
The Guidance requires parties to provide a claim-by-claim assessment of the putative
class’s recovery along with “a justification of the discount applied to the claims.” See Guidance
§ 1.3. Plaintiffs attempt to address this requirement by identifying the various risks they face
should this case proceed through litigation, including (1) the risk that the size of the class could be
reduced by over 51% if Defendants succeeded in compelling certain putative class members to
individual arbitration, (2) the risk that the size of the class could be reduced by some 62% if
Defendants prevailed on their statute of limitations defense, and (3) the risk that the size of the
class’s potential recovery would be reduced by over 90% if Defendants persuaded the Court that
the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”) and the California Invasion
of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) apply only to California residents rather than nationwide. See Dkt. No.
261 at 26-27, 31. While these legal issues provide some potential basis for discounting class
recovery, the Guidance requires something different: a claim-by-claim enumeration of potential
class recovery under the settlement had Plaintiffs fully prevailed on all of them, and, it bears
repeating, “a justification of the discount applied to the claims.” See Guidance § 1.3. Plaintiffs’
submission in the instant motion lacks such a claim-by-claim analysis of the merits and instead
identifies potential stumbling blocks in maintaining the size and breadth of a 54.8-million-person
class. Plaintiffs’ previous motion similarly lacked this claim-by-claim analysis, a deficiency the
Court identified at the hearing on that motion. Plaintiffs’ failure to provide a claim-by-claim
analysis leaves the Court unable to assess the fairness and adequacy of the settlement. This alone
is sufficient grounds to deny preliminary approval of the settlement.
Case 3:23-cv-00501-AMO Document 267 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 5

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Further, Plaintiffs continue to fail to identify any confirmatory discovery they have
conducted to evaluate the strength of their claims in this case. They identify no confirmatory
discovery taken to date and at this stage of the case still lack foundational information regarding
Defendants’ potential liability. See Fisher Decl. (Dkt. No. 261-1) ¶ 29 (“We also would expect
discovery to confirm the use of the Pixels, SDKs, and other technologies.”); ¶ 31 (describing
depositions and written discovery still to be completed). This too serves as grounds to deny
preliminary approval of the settlement.
Finally, it is difficult to comprehend how the scope of the Settlement Agreement’s release
provision is commensurate with the value of the proposed settlement award. The Settlement
Agreement contemplates that all settlement class members will release “[A]ny and all manner of
claims . . . that arise out of, or are based upon or connected to, or relate in any way to the Data
Disclosure or Defendants’ use of Pixels, SDKs, cookies, APIs, or any similar technologies, or that
were or could have been asserted in the Litigation.” Settlement Agreement § B.40. The
differences between the claims released and the claims in the operative complaint remain
insufficiently justified at this stage. Cf. Consolidated Am. Compl. (Dkt. No. 102). While courts in
the Ninth Circuit may approve releases of claims based on the same facts pleaded in the case, see
Dkt. No. 261 at 19 (quoting In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 327 F.R.D. 299, 327 (N.D. Cal.
2018)), Plaintiffs fail to explain how this release equates to the factual allegations underlying the
16 causes of action brought here. Plaintiffs’ estimation that some 3-10% of class members will
file claims, and that, assuming a 6% claims rate, each person would recover $9.73, does not
support such a broad release for a putative settlement class of 54.8 million people. This also
serves as a basis to deny preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.
III. CONCLUSION
In sum, Plaintiffs fail to provide the Court with a complete evaluation of the asserted
claims, they fail to describe confirmatory discovery to bolster the reasonableness of their
settlement, and they fail to establish that the broad release conferred by the settlement equates to
the class’s proposed recovery. The Court cannot find the proposed settlement proposed fair,
Case 3:23-cv-00501-AMO Document 267 Filed 01/16/26 Page 4 of 5

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
adequate, or reasonable for at least these reasons. Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 16, 2026
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00501-AMO Document 267 Filed 01/16/26 Page 5 of 5