So just to be clear because I don't think this article does a very good job of explaining the background.

Google was sued in 2010 for a privacy violation as a class action. They chose to settle and the terms of that settlement (according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23) were carefully reviewed by Judge Davila, an experienced federal district court judge in San Jose. He approved the settlement's terms as fair based on the transaction costs of giving small amounts of money to a large number of persons. Instead, Google would make a donation to a charity, some of which would be diverted to the attorneys who brought the case. This is called a "cy pres" award, from the latin meaning "as near as possible." Cy pres only settlements are quite rare in class action practice and are strongly disfavored.

Here are the terms, as described by the Ninth Circuit:

   Of the $8.5 million settlement fund, approximately $3.2
   million was set aside for attorneys’ fees, administration
   costs, and incentive payments to the named plaintiffs. The
   remaining $5.3 million or so was allocated to six cy pres
   recipients, each of which would receive anywhere from 15 to
   21% of the money, provided that they agreed “to devote the
   funds to promote public awareness and education, and/or to
   support research, development, and initiatives, related to
   protecting privacy on the Internet.” The six recipients were
   AARP, Inc.; the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at
   Harvard University; Carnegie Mellon University; the Illinois
   Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law
   Center for Information, Society and Policy; the Stanford
   Center for Internet and Society; and the World Privacy
   Forum. Each of the recipients submitted a detailed proposal
   for how the funds would be used to promote Internet privacy.[1]

Between preliminary approval and final approval, Ted Frank from the CEI filed an objection. (He's done this dozens of times and cy pres is a particular hobby horse of his.) When Judge Davila overruled his objection, he took an appeal. The Ninth Circuit denied that appeal, so he asked the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

The news is that this was granted. It takes four sitting US Supreme Court justices to grant cert so it doesn't necessarily mean the law is going to change, just that at least a significant minority of the court want to opine on this particular issue.

[1] See page 6 -- http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/08/22/15...