Considerations for Collective Action Settlements

The £260m settlement agreed between Google and Professor Barry Rodger (the CR) in the UK app developers collective action is the largest settlement of collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal to date.

Understandably, it has received significant press attention since it was announced in August 2026 and approved by the Tribunal in September 2026. The Tribunal's reasoned judgment, which followed in October, has received less attention. Under r.94 of the Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2015, however, a collective settlement can only be approved if its terms are “just and reasonable”. The judgment provides useful insight into how the Tribunal approached that assessment in practice, including five considerations of particular interest:

1. Supervisory function - the Tribunal emphasised that its function is a supervisory one. It noted that in any complex litigation, there will likely be a range of settlements which might be regarded as acceptable. The question is not therefore whether the Tribunal would itself have agreed the particular settlement.
2. Informed decision - the Tribunal considered it significant that the proposed settlement was reached at a very advanced stage in the proceedings, shortly before trial. Substantial disclosure and several rounds of factual and expert evidence had taken place, against which the parties could assess the proposed settlement terms. The CR had also taken independent advice on the aspects of the arrangements in which his trial lawyers had a financial interest.
3. Relative value - a settlement well below the full potential value of the claim (as calculated by the CR's expert) was considered just and reasonable once the risks for the CR in proceeding to trial were also taken into account. This was even on the assumption that the CR's fundamental case on liability was a strong one. In making this point, the Tribunal noted that the settlement sum exceeded the upper end of the range supported by Google's expert (£191m) and highlighted material risks and uncertainties regarding quantum, including issues of applicable law / territoriality; an intra-group/agency issue raised by Google; and pass-on. Settlement at this stage ‘bought off’ these risks.
4. Immediate certainty - the Tribunal also emphasised the value of immediate certainty, particularly given the time that would otherwise be required to obtain judgment and the possibility that an appeal could add a further 12 to 24 months, alongside the material additional costs of continuing the proceedings.
5. Allocation - of the £260m, £160m is to be allocated to the class, and £100m to the funders, lawyers, and insurers. The CR proposed to pay approximately £28m to the funder to return its capital outlay and £56m in respect of its profit share. The ATE insurers would receive £4m, with £12m going to solicitors and counsel. The Tribunal noted that while £100m was a large figure, the £160m pot for the class represented almost 70% of the settlement sum after discounting the litigation budget. It explained that collective proceedings like this could not be pursued without funders supporting them financially and that funders are entitled to a reasonable return. Similarly, where lawyers have been prepared to defer or discount their fees they may legitimately insist on an uplift in the event of success. Ultimately, this was a successful outcome “in the sense that it secures a very significant sum of money for distribution to the class members” that had only been achieved due to the willingness of the funders and lawyers to risk capital and fees respectively. The Tribunal also commented favourably on the “firm approach” the CR appeared to have taken towards his stakeholders. The £100m pot represented a material discount on their contractual entitlements, with no guarantee that the Tribunal would accept that any undistributed funds should subsequently be made available to meet the balance.

The Tribunal also examined other matters such as the proposed distribution plan and the period for developers to elect to opt out of the settlement. It chose to determine how to deal with undistributed funds at a later stage, once the amount at stake and success or otherwise of the distribution process was known.

Overall, the judgment illustrates that approval is a holistic exercise, in which factors such as the litigation risks avoided and the timing of recovery will receive significant attention alongside analysis of the settlement amount and allocation between class and stakeholders.