Elizabeth C. Pritzker

On February 27, 2014, Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California chose the lawyer who would lead a class of mesquite-charcoal buyers by comparing two complaints. Both cases followed a prosecution in the same district, United States v. Lord, in which William W. Lord, the sole owner of Chef’s Choice Mesquite Charcoal, had pleaded guilty to a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and admitted to an agreement with all of the civil defendants not to compete for customers for the sale of mesquite lump charcoal.

The complaint filed for Darbar Cuisine ran nine pages and, in Alsup’s words, “has no market share figures and does not cite any documents or transcripts from the criminal investigation.” The complaint Elizabeth C. Pritzker’s firm filed in Il Fornaio (America) Corp. v. Lazzari Fuel Company ran twenty-three pages and “quotes potentially relevant documents and transcripts from the criminal investigation,” and, Alsup noted, her declaration showed the work counsel had done “in identifying and investigating potential class claims since March 2013.” “On balance,” he wrote, he was “more impressed” with the work her firm had done investigating the claims and drafting “a detailed 23-page complaint.” He appointed Pritzker, then practicing as Pritzker | Law, interim counsel for the class, consolidated the two cases for all purposes including trial, and barred settlement discussions outside the supervision of Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.

That case ended with three charcoal companies and their principals paying $4.575 million. In September 2017 Pritzker became chair of the plaintiffs’ steering committee in the EpiPen litigation in Kansas, brought for people who had paid for an epinephrine injector whose price, they alleged, Mylan had raised more than 600 percent. The plaintiffs there had no parallel government proceeding against Pfizer or Mylan on which they could rely, the court later found, and she and four co-lead counsel took the case through class certification, a summary-judgment ruling that left their generic-delay claims for a jury, and preparation for two trial dates. Pfizer and Mylan settled for a combined $609 million. In the same years she and her partner, Jonathan K. Levine, tried a German software company’s contract claims against Kodak Alaris to a jury in Boston.

What the Charcoal Sellers Could Pay

The Justice Department had announced Lord’s guilty plea on June 18, 2012. Chef’s Choice was based in Carpinteria, California, and the charge, filed in San Francisco on May 7, 2012, accused Lord of a customer-allocation and bid-rigging conspiracy with two competitors, a distributor in the Los Angeles area and one in the San Francisco area, that ran from as early as January 2000 until about September 2010. The conspirators agreed not to compete for each other’s customers and submitted noncompetitive bids to them. Restaurants and individuals use mesquite charcoal for grilling. Pritzker’s firm filed Il Fornaio’s complaint against three charcoal companies on November 7, 2013; the Darbar complaint, filed eight days later, named the same three companies and Lord himself.

The class Alsup certified reached every person and entity in the United States that bought mesquite lump charcoal directly from a defendant between January 1, 2000 and September 30, 2011, the span of what the court called an “alleged eleven-year price-fixing and customer-allocation conspiracy.” The buyers were restaurants and food distributors. Il Fornaio, Oliveto Partners, Darbar Cuisine and The Famous Enterprise Fish Company of Santa Monica were the named plaintiffs; the defendants were Lazzari Fuel Company, California Charcoal and Firewood, Chef’s Choice and their principals. Lazzari had already obtained a leniency agreement from the Department of Justice and had offered buyers purchase rebates, in the form of discounts on future payments, as restitution.

Pritzker told the court in a sworn declaration that two Lazzari principals, Richard Morgen and Robert Colbert, were “without any significant assets with which to satisfy a larger judgment.” Lazzari’s offer took account of its “weak financial condition,” and Chef’s Choice’s took account of the “limited financial resources” of Lord, whose assets totaled $3.37 million as of September 2014. Lazzari agreed to pay $750,000, Colbert $50,000 and Morgen $25,000. Marvin Ring, the sole owner of California Charcoal and Firewood, agreed to pay $1.55 million, and Pritzker’s declaration said that class counsel “took into consideration the circumstantial evidence of liability that exists” against the California Charcoal defendants. Lord agreed to pay $2.2 million. Alsup noted that the $4.575 million total represented 55 percent of the low-end estimate of the overcharges, before trebling, made by the plaintiffs’ trial expert.

Pritzker also told the court that the defendants’ records contained “deficiencies that make it difficult to fairly and accurately calculate settlement benefits on a pro rata basis.” Chef’s Choice had not kept purchase orders for many of its “key customers” and had suffered a “massive data loss” in 2012; Lazzari had electronic data only for 2008 through 2011, and earlier years would have to be rebuilt from “paper invoices or payment records, to the extent such records exist.” The settlement instead paid, pro rata, the class members who filed claims. When Alsup granted final approval on May 20, 2015, 240 class members, accounting for 65 percent of the class’s purchases, had filed timely claims, and no one had objected. By January 19, 2016, the $3,439,772.12 net settlement fund had been distributed in its entirety. Alsup sent the $30.52 left in escrow to the American Antitrust Institute and closed the case.

Lensman and the First Amendment Project

In 1992 Pritzker was executive director and counsel of the First Amendment Project, a nonprofit public-interest law firm she had co-founded. That year she was lead trial counsel for the daughter and heir of the science-fiction writer E. E. “Doc” Smith; the daughter had been sued for writing a letter to the editor criticizing a comic-book treatment of her father’s Lensman series. Pritzker used California’s anti-SLAPP law to have the suit dismissed, with fees and costs awarded to her client. She stayed at the First Amendment Project, as chief staff attorney, through 1999.

Before the First Amendment Project she had studied economics at McGill University in Montreal and law at the University of San Francisco. Her later practice included work as a principal attorney at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in Burlingame, eight years as a partner at Girard Gibbs in San Francisco, and antitrust cases including In re DRAM Antitrust Litigation, In re SRAM Antitrust Litigation and the California Natural Gas Antitrust Cases. With Jonathan K. Levine she founded Pritzker Levine LLP, whose office is in Emeryville, California. In January 2015 the firm sued the NCAA and its major conferences for two University of California women’s basketball players, Justine Hartman and Afure Jemerigbe, who became class representatives in the grant-in-aid litigation; it served as additional class counsel.

Hartman was a Cal player when the firm filed her case. In a sworn declaration in March 2019, Pritzker set out what the case had asked of her client. Hartman searched her files for contracts, forms, emails, correspondence and school brochures reaching back to middle school, and signed a waiver allowing the defendants to obtain her admission, academic, health and athletic records. Her deposition took “hours of preparation with me at my offices, or on campus, over the course of several days,” Pritzker wrote, and then a full day away from her studies answering “detailed questioning by a senior defense attorney for the NCAA.” Hartman met Pritzker and class counsel in Los Angeles and later in Oakland to prepare for trial, gave up work opportunities to attend it, and testified. Pritzker Levine also headed third-party discovery directed to 337 Division I member schools and defended Jemerigbe, a damages class representative, at her deposition. In June 2021 the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the NCAA’s limits on education-related benefits.

Pritzker served on the board of Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, the country’s oldest association of LGBTQI people in the legal profession, where she headed its program evaluating judicial nominees, aimed at increasing LGBTQI representation on state and federal courts, and led a mentoring program for LGBTQI law students and new lawyers. In 2020 she conceived, raised money for and launched a law-school fellowship, run by the California Lawyers Foundation and the California Lawyers Association, to bring diverse and underrepresented lawyers into antitrust and unfair-competition practice. Each fellow receives $10,000, a practicing antitrust lawyer as a mentor for the year, and a required summer internship with a federal or state antitrust enforcer such as the California Department of Justice or the U.S. Department of Justice.

She has chaired the association’s antitrust section and edited its journal, Competition. In October 2019, as her term as chair began, the section adopted what she called in the journal its “first-ever Diversity and Inclusion Policy,” with a goal that at least 30 percent of any candidate pool for leadership or governance within the section be diverse members. When the section named her its Antitrust Lawyer of the Year in 2022, she became the first out lesbian lawyer to receive that honor. In a message to the members that November she thanked them for honoring her as “the Section’s first woman, private plaintiffs Antitrust Attorney of the Year,” and wrote: “Now in my 32nd year of practice, I literally grew up (professionally) in the California Antitrust and Consumer Protection Section law bar.”

Kodak Alaris and the One-Euro Option

ITyX Solutions AG, a German company, made intelligent document recognition software. Under a Master Agreement signed January 18, 2012, it licensed the software to Kodak for a Kodak-branded product called Info Insight. The agreement required Kodak to distribute that product exclusively and not to develop a functionally equivalent one; if Kodak abandoned the business, it could not sell a competing product for two years. Eastman Kodak filed for bankruptcy the day after signing, and in September 2013 Kodak Alaris Inc. took its place as the counterparty to the Master Agreement.

In June 2014, Kodak Alaris’s parent, Kodak Alaris Holdings, agreed to invest €12.6 million in ITyX Technology over sixteen months in exchange for 25.1 percent of that company. If Kodak Alaris Holdings defaulted on a payment for more than thirty days, the ITyX companies could exercise a call option and buy all of Kodak Alaris Holdings’ shares of ITyX Technology in exchange for waiving its outstanding investment obligations and an additional €1. In June 2015 Kodak Alaris Holdings missed a monthly payment, and on November 24, 2015, ITyX OHG exercised the option. On December 18, 2015, Kodak Alaris Holdings accused ITyX OHG of violating its fiduciary duties and asserted that the option was immoral and void, and the same day Kodak Alaris sent notice terminating the Master Agreement.

ITyX sued in federal court in Boston in February 2016, and by September 2016 Kodak Alaris was offering its own AIM platform for sale. Pritzker and Levine tried the case for ITyX before Judge Allison D. Burroughs and an eleven-member jury from November 5 to November 26, 2018. Kodak Alaris pressed counterclaims against ITyX, its parent companies and its founders, Süleyman Arayan and Heiko Groftschik. The jury deliberated for less than two hours. It found that Kodak Alaris had failed to make payments the contracts required and had competed with ITyX after ending the relationship, awarded ITyX $7,466,045, and rejected every counterclaim.

Burroughs then decided ITyX’s claims for declaratory relief. The termination rested on a fiduciary duty, and Section 29.0 of the Master Agreement provided that ITyX “shall act as an independent contractor.” Because the companies had formed no partnership or joint venture, she held, ITyX owed Kodak Alaris no fiduciary duty, and Kodak Alaris had not properly terminated the agreements. She also held that Kodak Alaris had “materially breached that agreement by subsequently reentering the IDR business represented by the Kodak IDR Product within two years of abandoning the business by marketing its AIM platform.”

The company then moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial or a reduced award, arguing among other things that Arayan had testified untruthfully. Burroughs answered that “Mr. Arayan was subject to cross-examination on the supposed untruthful testimony, and the jury’s verdict therefore necessarily resolved the credibility issue that KAI now wants to argue to the Court.” She traced the damages to the evidence: the $872,529 awarded under the Master Agreement was “forty (40) percent of the roughly $2.2 million in sales that the jury could reasonably have believed the Kodak Product would have achieved.” She denied the motion in June 2019.

On appeal, Kodak Alaris argued among other things that ITyX lacked Article III standing and that the damages were speculative. In February 2020 the First Circuit upheld the verdict. Kodak, Judge Lynch wrote for the panel, did “not cite any cases that a defense that a party to a contract has violated a provision of that contract precludes Article III standing,” and ITyX had supported its damages “by providing the sales figures of the product that Kodak marketed in place of ITyX’s.”

From Single Injectors to a $608 Two-Pak

Lesley Huston, a runner in Douglas County, Kansas, bought EpiPens because of the risk of anaphylaxis during exercise. Before the 2-Pak, she had bought single injectors. On August 24, 2011, Mylan announced that it would no longer sell individual EpiPens in the United States and began selling them only in pairs, as the EpiPen 2-Pak. In the consolidated complaint, Huston listed what she had paid for a 2-Pak after that: $216.70 on July 24, 2012; $313.18 on March 28, 2014; and $489.32 on June 3, 2015. In March 2016 she paid a $50 co-pay and her insurer paid $489.80.

Other plaintiffs alleged what the prices had done to them. Elizabeth Huelsman, a Californian allergic to bee stings whose insurance did not cover EpiPens, had bought one or two a year until 2015, when they became cost-prohibitive for her. “She now carries only expired EpiPen products,” the plaintiffs alleged. Todd Beaulieu of Massachusetts, allergic to insect venom, kept six to eight pens at a time, two at work, two at home and two in his car, and held on to expired ones so that a pen was always close at hand. At a CVS in Kingston he paid $211.73 for four pens in July 2014 and $308.82 for four in April 2016.

The plaintiffs alleged that Mylan had raised the EpiPen’s price by more than 600 percent, from $100 in 2007 to more than $600 by 2016, and that a 2-Pak that cost $181 in October 2011 cost $608 by May 2016. Pfizer, through its subsidiaries King Pharmaceuticals and Meridian Medical Technologies, manufactured the epinephrine, held the EpiPen patents and supplied every EpiPen Mylan sold. They also alleged that Mylan paid pharmacy benefit managers rebates of 30 percent or more on the condition that they give EpiPen exclusive formulary position and remove or severely restrict Sanofi’s rival injector, Auvi-Q, launched in 2013; that the defendants’ April 2012 settlement of patent litigation with Teva required Teva to delay launching its generic injector until June 22, 2015; and that Mylan’s chief executive, Heather Bresch, testified untruthfully before Congress on September 21, 2016.

At a House Oversight Committee hearing that September, Representative Elijah Cummings, the committee’s ranking Democrat, described the EpiPen as an “old cheap drug that has virtually no competition” and said Bresch had raised “the price over and over and over again as high as you can.” According to the plaintiffs, Bresch misrepresented Mylan’s profit on the EpiPen as $50 per device when its profits were reportedly 60 percent higher; put Mylan’s investment in the device at $1 billion, when Mylan had acquired it in 2007 without incurring any research and development expenses; and said that 85 percent of EpiPen patients paid less than $100 for a 2-Pak.

On August 4, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation sent the EpiPen cases to Judge Daniel D. Crabtree in the District of Kansas as MDL No. 2785. On September 12, 2017, Crabtree approved the plaintiffs’ leadership and appointed Pritzker chair of the plaintiffs’ steering committee. Five weeks later the plaintiffs filed a 400-page consolidated complaint asserting claims under RICO and state antitrust and consumer-protection laws.

The complaint’s first sentence called the case “one of the most egregious examples of corporate greed and malfeasance in our nation’s history.” Its second paragraph turned to the people who depended on the device: “One dose of epinephrine can mean the difference between life and death.”

By the time the case ended, the plaintiffs had obtained more than 1.75 million documents, over 11 million pages, from the defendants and third parties, prepared eight expert witnesses, and taken or defended 158 depositions. Those depositions included every named plaintiff; many traveled from their homes to Kansas to be deposed. The experts included Professor Meredith Rosenthal of Harvard on classwide damages and her colleague Einer Elhauge on damages and liability, James Bruno on Teva’s development of a generic EpiPen, Dr. Carl Peck on the pay-for-delay claims and FDA approval, Dr. Andrew W. Torrance on the pay-for-delay claims, and Dr. Jay Portnoy, a pediatric allergist, on anaphylaxis and its treatment.

Whether Local 282 Was Injured

The plaintiffs moved for class certification on December 7, 2018. On February 27, 2020, Crabtree certified a nationwide RICO class of people and entities that paid or reimbursed some or all of the price of an EpiPen, for use rather than resale, from August 24, 2011, along with a class under state antitrust laws. Consumers who paid only a flat co-payment that was the same for every covered device, branded or generic, fell outside the class definitions.

Mylan said a medical necessity had supported the switch to pairs. The plaintiffs answered that nothing had changed in 2011 that required it, and alleged that Mylan kept selling single EpiPens in every other country where it marketed the product except France. Among the questions Crabtree found common to the class was whether the defendants had forced consumers to buy the EpiPen only in a 2-Pak on a purported medical necessity when their “true motive for removing single EpiPens from the market was to increase profit.”

Mylan attacked the class representatives. One was Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund, a self-insured employee health and welfare plan in Lake Success, New York, that paid claims from its own funds. Mylan asserted that the plan bore no price risk for increased drug costs. Crabtree rejected the assertion: “The record simply won’t support that conclusion.” Even if the union whose members participated in Local 282 negotiated higher employer contributions to offset an overcharge, he wrote, “that is a forward-looking exercise,” and “Local 282 still has sustained injury when the benefit plan was overcharged (if it was).”

The RICO claims, Mylan argued, required class members to show that they had relied on Mylan’s misrepresentations. Crabtree cited Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co.: “The Supreme Court has held—explicitly—that first-party reliance is not required to establish a RICO claim premised on the predicate act of mail fraud.”

For classwide impact and damages, the plaintiffs relied on their expert, Professor Rosenthal, who calculated damages under “various but-for entry scenarios” with an assumed generic entry date of March 13, 2014, and computed a generic penetration rate, the share of buyers who would have switched to a generic in that world. Against the argument that consumers and third-party payors would be at odds over the damages, Crabtree found that the two groups shared an “alignment of incentives,” because both sought to prove that the defendants’ conduct made them overpay for the EpiPen, and wrote: “The court can address this issue, if a conflict actually emerges, when damages are allocated.”

Rosenthal would identify class members from pharmacy benefit managers’ data, pharmacy records and purchasers’ own records. For each of them, Crabtree wrote, “the relevant question will be what the Class member’s generic copayments would have been at the same point in time as the brand purchase they made.” He concluded that the plaintiffs had presented plausible evidence that each named plaintiff had been injured under the generic-delay theory.

When it certified the class, the court appointed five co-lead counsel for it: Warren T. Burns, Paul J. Geller, Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Lynn Lincoln Sarko and Rex A. Sharp. The defendants asked the Tenth Circuit to review the certification under Rule 23(f); on May 26, 2020, the Tenth Circuit declined.

Teva’s Generic and the June 22, 2015 Date

The generic-delay claims ran through a patent case. When Mylan moved for summary judgment, Crabtree set out the record behind them, taking any genuinely disputed fact in the plaintiffs’ favor. Teva had asked the FDA in 2007 to approve a generic version of the EpiPen, and in August 2009 Meridian and King sued Teva for infringement; the case went to a bench trial on February 16, 2012. On March 8, the day before the trial’s last day, William Marth, then president and chief executive of Teva Americas, wrote that he had “talked to Heather yesterday throughout the afternoon and evening about settlement,” and that “[s]he (Heather) wants to give [Teva] a 2018 entry date but would likely agree to 2017.” Marth was willing to negotiate “any date in 2016 or earlier.”

Teva had its own doubts about the product. In an April 2012 internal e-mail Marth acknowledged that “[t]he product is challenging,” and Teva’s regulatory team “d[id] not believe FDA would approve the product.” On April 26, 2012, Pfizer and Teva executed a binding term sheet that granted Teva a license to launch its injector by June 22, 2015, subject to FDA approval. It provided for no payment of money between Pfizer and Teva. The same day Mylan, which had not signed the term sheet, executed a covenant not to sue Teva on patents Mylan owned or controlled; a Mylan witness testified that Mylan signed it “to appease Teva.”

The plaintiffs contended that Mylan had paid for the delay all the same, by giving Teva favorable terms in a settlement, reached the same day, of an unrelated infringement case Teva had brought against Mylan. In June 2021 Crabtree held that the plaintiffs had produced evidence “from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the EpiPen settlement delayed generic entry,” and said that, if the plaintiffs’ account was true, the arrangement was the kind of “reverse payment” deal that has drawn antitrust scrutiny since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in FTC v. Actavis.

Pfizer and Mylan Settle Before Trial

Ahead of a trial then set for September 7, 2021, the plaintiffs negotiated a detailed proposed pretrial order, drafted jury instructions and a proposed jury questionnaire, and assembled witness and exhibit lists. On June 10, 2021, the Pfizer defendants, Pfizer Inc., Meridian Medical Technologies and King Pharmaceuticals, agreed to pay $345 million. Crabtree granted final approval on November 17, 2021, finding that there had been no parallel government proceeding against the Pfizer defendants on which the plaintiffs could rely for investigation, discovery or reassurance about the merits, and that class counsel had put in more than four years, tens of millions of dollars in attorney time and more than nine million dollars in expenses with a substantial risk of no recovery. He wrote that the court had “observed the skill and zeal which Co-Lead Counsel has applied to prosecute this case.”

The claims against the Mylan defendants and Bresch went on toward trial in Kansas City, Kansas. The date moved more than once and was set for February 22, 2022. For a trial they expected to last five to seven weeks, co-lead counsel finalized a jury questionnaire with the court, argued motions in limine at a full-day hearing, prepared voir dire questions, worked with jury consultants and held mock jury proceedings in Kansas City. On February 4, the plaintiffs and Mylan told the court they had agreed on a term sheet, and on February 27 they signed the settlement: $264 million, none of it reverting to Mylan. Mylan was to deposit $5 million in escrow at the outset and the rest by July 1 or five days before the fairness hearing, whichever came first. Crabtree granted final approval on July 11, 2022, and no class member filed a valid objection. The class’s settlements with the two drug companies totaled $609 million.

Dividing $609 Million

At certification Crabtree had said that any conflict between consumers and payors could be addressed when damages were allocated. The plans of allocation he approved for both settlements divided each net settlement fund, 80 percent to third-party payors such as Local 282 and 20 percent to consumers. Class members who had filed claims against the Pfizer fund qualified for payment from the Mylan fund without filing again.

Steven S. Gensler, a University of Oklahoma law professor whom class counsel retained to give opinions on the Mylan settlement, explained that the two pools were funded based on the damages Professor Rosenthal had estimated. Under the Mylan plan, each claim was measured by the total dollars the claimant had spent on branded or authorized generic EpiPens between August 24, 2011 and November 1, 2020, and each pool was paid out pro rata. If one pool could pay all of its claimants in full and the other could not, the surplus would move across.

Notice went out on more than 6.4 million postcards and 1.79 million emails, in People magazine and through a release to about 10,000 newsrooms. By May 20, 2022, consumers had filed 402,602 claims and third-party payors 3,351; about 253,000 of the consumer claims had come in under the Pfizer settlement.

Thirty-five class representatives had served. Crabtree approved service awards based on the hours each reported, $5,000 for those who logged sixty hours or more and $79 an hour for the others, which under the Mylan settlement came to between $3,160 and $5,000 apiece. Huston reported 85 hours; Local 282 reported 210.

Whatever remained after the first distribution was to go out again to claimants who would receive at least $5.00, for as long as another round was economically feasible, and any final remainder, if the court approved, to four allergy organizations: the Allergy and Asthma Foundation of America, the Allergy and Asthma Network, the Allison Rose Foundation and the Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Connection Team. On March 26, 2026, nearly four years after the final approval of the Mylan settlement, the settlement administrator, A.B. Data, began a second distribution, emailing each consumer with a valid claim whose payment came to $5.00 or more a link to redeem it by the payment method chosen in the first distribution.

Identifiers in Google’s Ad Auctions

In March 2021, Kimberley Woodruff, a Missouri resident, and other Google users alleged that Google’s real-time bidding system, the advertising auctions in which bidders compete for ad placements, violated their privacy by sharing their personal information with thousands of outside companies, despite Google’s promise not to sell account holders’ personal information. The data sent to the auctions, they said, included device identifiers, geolocation, IP addresses and profile details about users’ interests, race, religion, sexual orientation and health, and some participants received it without bidding on ads at all. Pritzker became interim lead counsel in In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation, before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California.

In 2017 she had published an article in Competition titled “Making the Intangible Concrete: Litigating Intangible Harms in a Post-Spokeo World.” She examined how federal courts had treated intangible privacy harms in the months after the Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, a standing case about statutory damages, and wrote that plaintiffs “must make an effort to understand the harms Congress intended to protect against in enacting a particular statute, and should be selective in the claims they bring.” Plaintiffs worried about meeting Spokeo’s standing requirements, she wrote, might consider bringing their statutory privacy claims in state court.

In 2025 the plaintiffs and Google reached a settlement. Google agreed to build a control that, for any class member who turns it on, removes identifiers, including encrypted Google user IDs and device advertising IDs, from the bid requests in those auctions; to keep it for at least three years; to tell every class member about it by email; and to publish disclosures explaining its auction practices, the new control and how to limit the sharing of data. The plaintiffs’ expert estimated the class at a minimum of 169 million people and possibly more than 200 million. Class counsel asked Judge Gonzalez Rogers to certify the settlement class and approve the agreement. On March 26, 2026, she granted final approval and gave Google thirty days to make the control available, post a webpage describing it and send the email to class members.