Nov 1 (Reuters) - Oracle and the plaintiffs' lawyers who

negotiated a $115 million privacy settlement with the tech giant

will face opposition when a U.S. judge in California considers

final approval of the proposed deal.

More than 25 objections have been filed to the proposed

deal, according to a filing on Thursday in federal court in San

Francisco from the plaintiffs lawyers who are defending the

accord and asking a judge to approve it. The settlement was

announced in July.

Most of the challengers, part of an estimated class size of

220 million members, contend the settlement amount is

inadequate, and others argue the court should reject the

plaintiffs' lawyers bid for $28.8 million in legal fees.

Oracle and the plaintiffs' lawyers did not immediately

respond to requests for comment.

A hearing is scheduled for Nov. 14 before U.S. District

Judge Richard Seeborg.

The class action accused Oracle of building "digital

dossiers" on millions of people without their consent, violating

federal and state privacy laws and California's constitution.

Oracle denied any wrongdoing as part of the proposed accord.

It has since exited the advertising technology industry amid

what it said was falling revenue.

In their filing, the plaintiffs' lawyers called the

objections a "minute fraction of the class" and said they should

not stand in the way of the settlement's approval.

The lawyers asserted that challenges to the deal do not

adequately account for the risks of further litigation.

More than 3.2 million people so far have submitted claims,

the plaintiffs' filing said. Eligible class members can expect

to receive about $25, the attorneys told the court.

The class attorneys said the compensation was the highest in

any privacy case where there is no direct relationship between

the members and the defendant.

In one objection, a lawyer in New Orleans called the

plaintiffs' demand for $28.8 million in legal fees "a money

grab."

"This is the type of settlement that gives lawyers - and

plaintiff-side attorneys in particular - a bad name," attorney

Chris Williams, an employment litigator, told the court.

The class lawyers defended their fee request, which amounts

to 25% of the settlement fund. They said the 9th U.S. Circuit

Court of Appeals has set that percentage as a benchmark for

California and other federal courts in the West.

The case is Michael Katz-Lacabe et al v. Oracle, U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California, No.

3-22-cv-04792-RS.

For plaintiffs: Michael Sobol and David Rudolph of Lieff

Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein

For defendant: Tiffany Cheung and Purvi Patel of Morrison &

Foerster

Read more:

Oracle reaches $115 mln consumer privacy settlement