United States of America: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed settlement approval in lawsuit against Oracle over alleged violations of federal and state privacy laws

On 13 February 2026, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the final approval of a class-action settlement in a lawsuit against Oracle over alleged violations of federal and state privacy laws (Katz-Lacabe and Golbeck v Oracle). The underlying lawsuit alleged that Oracle violated federal privacy statutes as well as specific privacy laws of California and Florida through its practices of collecting consumer data. The appellate court reviewed the decision of the District Court for the Northern District of California for any clear abuse of discretion. Objector Sarah Feldman challenged the settlement, contending that the lower court did not adequately evaluate the risks associated with continued litigation and that the allocation plan, which compensated all class members equally, was inappropriate. The appellate court determined that the district court complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) by comprehensively exploring all relevant factors to ensure the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The ruling noted that the district court provided reasoned responses to non-frivolous objections and correctly identified that further litigation would be complex, expensive, and lengthy. Specifically, the court highlighted the novelty of the plaintiffs' claims and the previous finding that these claims just “barely” survived dismissal as justifications for a litigation discount. The Ninth Circuit further rejected the argument that the district court was required to specifically evaluate the risk of post-trial reductions in statutory damages. Regarding the allocation of funds, the court found that since only one nationwide class was certified, equal distribution was permissible. It clarified that class members who believed they possessed more valuable claims maintained the right to opt out of the settlement class.