A class action alleged that Google violated the Stored Communications Act by transmitting users’ search terms to websites they selected from search results. The parties negotiated a settlement requiring website disclosures and distributing more than five million dollars to cy pres recipients and more than two million dollars to class counsel, while providing no monetary relief to absent class members. The Supreme Court had granted review to consider whether the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. Instead, the Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded because a later standing decision raised substantial questions about whether any named plaintiff had suffered a qualifying injury. Without resolving the settlement issue, the Court held that the standing question had to be addressed first. Justice Thomas dissented, reasoning that the settlement itself was plainly inadequate because absent class members received no meaningful benefit and the named plaintiffs’ interests were not adequately represented. The decision illustrates how Article III standing can prevent appellate review of an important class-settlement question and how cy pres distributions can generate separate concerns about class adequacy and fairness.