Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
The Oracle data-collection class action is no longer pending. In Katz-Lacabe et al. v. Oracle America, Inc., a federal court approved a $115 million settlement and entered judgment on November 15, 2024; the Ninth Circuit affirmed the approval on February 13, 2026. The case resolved allegations about Oracle Advertising data practices, but neither court found that every allegation was true. The claim deadline was October 17, 2024.
What was the Oracle lawsuit about?
Katz-Lacabe et al. v. Oracle America, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-04792-RS, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in August 2022. The named plaintiffs were Michael Katz-Lacabe and Dr. Jennifer Golbeck. Contemporary coverage described the complaint as filed on August 19, 2022. The settlement site’s court documents and the original 2022 report identify the case and its allegations.
The plaintiffs alleged that Oracle collected and linked information about people’s online activity, built detailed profiles, and made data available for use or sale through Oracle Advertising products. They claimed the practices lacked meaningful consent or adequate notice, involved sharing with third parties such as advertisers, and could use proxies for sensitive information in ways that undermined privacy choices. These were allegations in the lawsuit, not findings after a trial.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →The complaint reportedly characterized Oracle’s operations as a “worldwide surveillance machine” and alleged that Oracle’s systems held or processed information relating to roughly five billion people. That figure came from the plaintiffs’ allegations as reported at the time; it was not independently verified as a court finding. Contemporary reporting and SecurityWeek’s account describe the claim.
#1 Best Overall
Which Oracle products were at issue?
The case concerned Oracle Advertising technologies and related data products—not a general Oracle Cloud Infrastructure breach or every service sold by Oracle. The complaint focused in particular on Oracle’s ID Graph and Data Marketplace, which plaintiffs said were used to link, enrich, use, or sell data. The settlement class definition also referred to personal information, or data derived from it, collected by Oracle Advertising technologies or made available through ID Graph, Data Marketplace, or another Oracle Advertising product or service.
The distinction matters: the named defendant was Oracle America, Inc., and the case addressed the specified advertising and data practices. It was not a judgment against every Oracle affiliate, nor a finding about all Oracle products.
What laws and claims did the case involve?
The litigation raised federal and state privacy, common-law, and competition-related theories. The district court’s motion-to-dismiss decision discussed Oracle’s challenge to, among other matters, an Electronic Communications Privacy Act claim and a Florida common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion claim. The litigation also involved theories under California’s constitutional privacy protections and California Invasion of Privacy Act, as well as California common-law and competition or antitrust-related claims. The court’s dismissal ruling explains the claims it addressed.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Claims do not all proceed unchanged from complaint to judgment. Some claims faced dismissal challenges, and the final approval order described certain claims as having “barely” survived dismissal. The parties ultimately resolved the action by settlement rather than obtaining a trial verdict on the underlying privacy allegations.
How did the case reach a final resolution?
- August 2022: The action was filed in the Northern District of California; August 19, 2018 later became the start of the settlement class period.
- 2022–2024: The case proceeded through motions to dismiss and discovery.
- July 8, 2024: Oracle and the plaintiffs entered a settlement agreement.
- July 18, 2024: The plaintiffs sought preliminary approval.
- August 9, 2024: The district court preliminarily approved the settlement and authorized notice.
- October 17, 2024: The deadline to file a claim, exclude oneself, or object.
- November 14–15, 2024: The court held the final-approval hearing on November 14 and entered final approval and judgment on November 15.
- December 19, 2024: An objector’s appeal was opened in the Ninth Circuit.
- February 13, 2026: The Ninth Circuit affirmed approval of the settlement.
The dates and orders are listed in the settlement documents, the final approval order and judgment, and the Ninth Circuit decision.
What did the settlement provide?
Money for valid claims
Oracle agreed to fund a $115 million non-reversionary settlement. The fund was intended for class members rather than automatically returning to Oracle. Payments were to be distributed pro rata among valid claimants after deductions for administration, court-approved attorneys’ fees and expenses, and service awards. The $115 million was the gross fund—not a guaranteed payment per person, and not the amount each class member necessarily received. The official settlement site describes the fund and terms.
The final approval order capped administrator expenses at $4.8 million. It also reported that, as of October 28, 2024, notice had reached approximately 83.33% of a 220-million-person target audience. Those are figures in the court’s approval record, not estimates of valid claimants or individual payment amounts. The order contains these details.
Privacy-related commitments
For covered products and services, Oracle agreed not to capture user-generated information in referrer URLs or text entered into online web forms, except on Oracle’s own websites. Oracle also agreed to implement an audit program addressing whether customers comply with contractual consumer-privacy obligations. These settlement commitments are described in the official settlement FAQs.
Best Value
Who was included in the settlement class?
The final class covered natural persons residing in the United States whose personal information, or data derived from personal information, was acquired, captured, or collected by Oracle Advertising technologies—or whose information was made available for use or sale through ID Graph, Data Marketplace, or another Oracle Advertising product or service—from August 19, 2018, through the date of final judgment. The final judgment sets out the controlling definition.
The definition excluded specified groups, including Oracle and related entities, certain Oracle personnel and affiliates, people who had released covered claims elsewhere, and the presiding judge, court staff, and their immediate family members. Whether a particular person met the definition depended on the settlement terms; simply using an Oracle product or being an Oracle customer did not establish eligibility.
Can someone still file a claim?
No new claim should be assumed to be available: the published claim deadline was October 17, 2024. For information about any remaining distribution or payment updates, consult the official settlement website or its contact page. The deadline has passed, and the settlement materials do not establish that late claims will be accepted.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Did a court find that Oracle violated people’s privacy?
No trial verdict determined that Oracle committed the alleged violations. Oracle settled the action, and the district court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the approval after an objector challenged the settlement’s fairness and its equal-payment allocation, arguing that claims by California and Florida residents were more valuable. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement; it did not decide that the allegations were true. The Ninth Circuit memorandum explains its review.
What the settlement does—and does not—show
The case shows how claims involving advertising identifiers, data brokers, and profiling can be pursued under a mix of federal and state privacy laws, and how a negotiated settlement can include operational commitments alongside monetary relief. It does not establish that every data-broker practice is unlawful or that the five-billion figure was proven. The result applies to this case, its defined class, and its approved settlement terms.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
