Mass Arbitration and Opt-Out Rights: A Federal Court in California Weighs In
A recent ruling by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has added an important new wrinkle to the already evolving landscape of class action settlements and mass arbitration. In the case In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation, 2025 WL 510435 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2025), the court was asked to decide whether more than 69,000 individuals could validly exclude themselves from a class action settlement in order to pursue their claims individually—via arbitration.
This case is yet another example of how the interplay between class actions and mass arbitration is shaping modern consumer litigation. It highlights not only procedural technicalities but also raises deeper questions about access to justice, representation, and the balance of power between individuals and large corporate defendants.
The Case in a Nutshell
At the center of the litigation was a class action lawsuit against Google concerning alleged privacy violations related to its voice-activated Assistant technology. The plaintiffs alleged that Google unlawfully recorded and retained users’ private conversations, a claim rooted in data privacy and consumer protection concerns. Eventually, a settlement was reached between the parties.
However, before the settlement could be finalized, a group of over 69,000 individuals sought to opt out of the settlement. What made this opt-out effort notable was its size, coordination, and purpose. All 69,000-plus individuals were represented by a single law firm that specializes in mass arbitration—a form of dispute resolution increasingly used to pursue consumer claims individually but at scale.
The law firm submitted a single notice of exclusion on behalf of its clients. That notice included a spreadsheet listing the names of all the individuals who wished to be excluded from the class. It was sent by email to the settlement administrator, contrary to the official instructions contained in the Long-Form Notice of Settlement.
Google’s Objection
Not surprisingly, Google opposed the mass opt-out. The company made several arguments, both procedural and substantive. First, it claimed that the opt-out submission violated due process, because the individuals involved had not personally and independently opted out. Instead, their attorneys had acted on their behalf, raising concerns (at least from Google’s perspective) about whether the individuals had knowingly and voluntarily chosen to exclude themselves.
Second, Google argued that the exclusion notice was procedurally defective. According to the Long-Form Notice, individuals who wished to opt out were required to do so by mail and to include their name, address, telephone number, and signature. Alternatively, an online opt-out form was available, but it required each consumer to submit their own request. Google maintained that the one-size-fits-all submission, lacking individual signatures and submitted by email, failed to comply with these specific instructions.
Essentially, Google’s position boiled down to this: a mass opt-out by spreadsheet doesn’t count.
The Court’s Ruling
The court disagreed. In denying Google’s motion to invalidate the opt-out submissions, the judge emphasized two key points.
1. Representation and Due Process:
The court found that each of the 69,000+ individuals had retained the same law firm, and that law firm was acting as their legal representative. That alone was enough to satisfy due process concerns. People have a right to representation, and they are entitled to make decisions—including opting out of class settlements—through their chosen counsel. The court was not persuaded by Google's argument that the absence of individual, direct action meant the opt-outs were invalid. Agency through counsel is a well-established legal principle.
2. Procedural Discretion:
On the issue of the missing signatures and the method of delivery, the court held that it retained discretion to accept opt-out requests that did not precisely conform to the published procedure. The judge cited precedent that courts overseeing class actions have broad authority to manage notice and exclusion procedures, and to accept deviations where appropriate. The core purpose of the opt-out requirement, after all, is to ensure clarity about who remains in the class and who does not—not to impose unnecessary barriers that serve only to protect the defendant.
This discretion, the court reasoned, allowed it to accept the spreadsheet list, even without individual signatures, particularly given the involvement of a law firm and the clear intent to opt out.
Why This Ruling Matters
This decision has implications that go well beyond this specific class action or even Google itself. Over the past several years, there has been a growing trend toward mass arbitration, especially in consumer and employment disputes. Plaintiffs’ firms have increasingly turned to this strategy when class action waivers or arbitration clauses block the path to traditional collective relief. If they cannot proceed together in court, they proceed individually—but en masse—in arbitration.
In response, many companies have sought to limit the feasibility of mass arbitration by making it procedurally difficult, or financially burdensome, for individuals to bring claims one-by-one. This case illustrates one of the creative tensions at play: on the one hand, the class settlement process is designed to resolve disputes collectively and efficiently; on the other hand, individuals retain the right to opt out and pursue individual remedies—especially if they believe they will fare better outside the class framework.
The court’s ruling essentially affirms that opting out of a class action settlement should not be made artificially difficult or bureaucratically impossible, particularly where individuals have retained legal counsel and clearly expressed their intent.
The Broader Landscape: Mass Arbitration and Legal Strategy
From a broader perspective, this case reflects the increasing sophistication of mass arbitration campaigns. Law firms that specialize in this area are building infrastructure to handle large numbers of claims efficiently. By doing so, they flip the script on large corporate defendants—many of whom inserted arbitration clauses into their contracts to avoid class actions in the first place.
Ironically, some of those same companies are now facing the prospect of defending thousands of individual arbitration cases, which can be just as costly (if not more so) than a class action settlement. In some instances, filing fees alone—often borne by the defendant under arbitration rules—can run into the millions of dollars.
The strategic opt-out of a class settlement in favor of mass arbitration is, therefore, a powerful new tool in the plaintiff-side playbook. And this ruling gives that tool greater legitimacy.
What Comes Next?
Given the court’s ruling, we may see more mass opt-outs of class settlements in the future, especially in privacy, consumer protection, and employment cases. Defendants who hope to resolve litigation through class settlements will need to account for the possibility that large numbers of claimants might still pursue individual arbitration—particularly where those claims may be more valuable or where claimants seek remedies not available in the class deal.
Plaintiffs’ counsel will likewise need to ensure they follow best practices when submitting bulk opt-out requests. While this court was willing to accept a spreadsheet and a single notice sent via email, not all courts may be as flexible. It remains important to communicate clear authorization, maintain client records, and document consent in ways that withstand judicial scrutiny.
Final Thoughts
The In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation ruling reinforces a basic but powerful principle: that legal procedures, even in mass disputes, must ultimately respect individual rights. Whether choosing to remain in a class or opt out, consumers should be allowed to exercise their rights without unnecessary procedural barriers. And when they choose to act through legal counsel, courts should respect that choice.
This case is a clear signal that courts are beginning to adapt to the evolving dynamics of mass litigation and arbitration. For practitioners on both sides of the “v.” — as well as for companies and consumers alike — it’s a decision worth watching. Given the changes to the rules governing mass arbitrations a while back, it might not be surprising to see similar exclusions in other cases in the future.
To read the decision, click here.