Google Play Store settlement sees lawyers and funders take £34m haircut

Why the advisers agreed to a smaller payday

The Competition Appeal Tribunal will be asked next week to approve a £260m settlement of a UK collective action against Google — a figure the class representative accepts is only around a quarter of what the claim was originally thought to be worth.

Professor Barry Rodger, a competition law academic acting as class representative, alleges Google used technical and contractual restrictions to make its Play Store the only practical way for UK Android app developers to market and sell their apps.

In his witness statement, Rodger said he remained confident in the class's liability case and its prospects at trial. But he also recognised the "inherent uncertainty" over the level of damages, which he said sat on an unusually large spectrum. Those risks persuaded him that the settlement sum was just and reasonable.

Where the £100m adviser pot goes

The lawyers and litigation funders were together owed roughly £134m. To help the settlement go through, they have agreed to take £100m.

Bench Walk Advisors, the third party litigation funder, originally committed £16.5m to the action. Its capital outlay eventually reached £27.7m and it will now receive £56.2m in profit, down from the £82.8m it was contractually entitled to under the litigation funding agreement.

The after-the-event insurer has similarly cut its £6m premium to £4.1m. Geradin Partners and counsel led by Robert O'Donoghue KC will share the remaining £12m reserved for advisers, accepting 32% less than they were due.

What this means for litigation funding economics

David Gallagher, a partner at Geradin Partners and Professor Rodger's solicitor, said Bench Walk's return — a multiple of 2.99 times its outlay — was "very much at the lower end" of funder returns in opt-out collective proceedings before the CAT.

Rodger told the tribunal the case could not have been run on its present scale without substantial funding and professional work being provided at risk. Bench Walk was twice asked to increase its commitment, and in return Geradin Partners had to move to a "substantially increased" level of fee deferral under its conditional fee arrangements.

Our view

The Google settlement is a useful reality check for anyone who thinks litigation funding is a one-way bet. When a collective action UK case reaches the settlement table, the people at the front of the queue for fees are often the first to be asked to give ground.

For law firms running conditional fee work and for third party litigation funders, the case shows how quickly return multiples can shrink once a case moves from theoretical upside to a negotiated payout. The CAT's approval hearing will be watched closely because it may set the benchmark for how future mass claims balance class recovery against adviser reward.

Background: the wider Google Play Store cases

The Rodger claim is one of three related actions over Google's Play Store conduct. In March 2025 the CAT ordered that it be case-managed alongside Liz Coll's consumer collective action and a private claim brought by Epic Games. Epic settled earlier this year, leaving the Rodger case as the main remaining action ahead of a joint trial listed for the end of September.

Because the class contains a relatively small number of members with large claims, take-up of the £160m developer damages pot is expected to be "very high" by value.