Javitch Law Office

Firm matter · Appeal pending

Taylor v. Google: Ninth Circuit Appeal on Class Representation

Javitch Law Office represents class member Nathan Byars in an appeal from final approval of a $135 million settlement concerning alleged cellular-data transfers by Android devices.

Attorney Advertising · Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

The case

Taylor v. Google LLC, No. 5:20-cv-07956-VKD, was filed in the Northern District of California. The action concerns allegations that Android devices made “passive” network transfers to Google without users’ knowledge or consent, consuming small amounts of users’ cellular data. Google disputed the claims.

On August 21, 2026, Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted final approval of a $135 million class settlement and entered judgment. The court reduced the requested attorneys’ fees, overruled the objections, dismissed the action with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

Mr. Byars’s objection

Nathan Byars is a member of the federal settlement class. Represented by Javitch Law Office, he timely objected and did not opt out. His May 1 objection raised four principal arguments: that the proposed relief did not adequately benefit the class; that counsel’s representation of both the Taylor and related Csupo classes created conflicting interests; that the combined fee request exceeded the Ninth Circuit benchmark; and that valuable litigation rights were surrendered without adequate valuation.

The settlement proponents disputed those arguments. The district court found the representation adequate and approved the settlement. The appeal asks the court of appeals to review that determination; no appellate ruling has been issued.

Issue on appeal

Whether the settlement provided the federal class with adequate, independent representation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4), where the recovery was divided between two separate classes represented by the same counsel.

Rule 23(a)(4) requires class representatives to “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Mr. Byars’s position is that separate classes with potentially divergent interests require representation loyal to each class’s interests alone. The district court rejected that position on the record before it. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will now review the approval order.

Procedural timeline

  1. May 1, 2026: Mr. Byars files his objection to the proposed settlement.
  2. June 17, 2026: Mr. Byars seeks leave to file a sur-reply addressing new evidence and arguments.
  3. June 23, 2026: The district court holds the final-approval hearing.
  4. August 21, 2026: The court grants final approval, resolves the fee request, and enters final judgment. A separate order denies intervention motions filed by other objectors.
  5. September 21, 2026: Javitch Law Office announces the notice of appeal on behalf of Mr. Byars.

Why the appeal matters

Class settlements bind people who may never appear in court themselves. Adequate representation is therefore not a technical formality: it is a prerequisite to binding absent class members. The appeal presents a focused question about how that protection operates when one negotiated resolution allocates value between two classes represented by the same counsel.

“Class members are entitled to representation loyal to their interests alone. This appeal asks the Court of Appeals to consider whether that standard was met here.” — Mark Javitch, counsel for Nathan Byars

Filed documents

The documents below are provided as filed. Advocacy in the objection and proposed sur-reply reflects Mr. Byars’s position; it is not a court finding.

Current status

The appeal is pending. This page will be updated when a public Ninth Circuit case number or substantive appellate ruling is available. Nothing on this page predicts the outcome.