For the first time since its preliminary approval in November 2008, the Google Book Search settlement is looking less like a done deal. On April 28, New York federal judge Denny Chin granted a four-month extension, delaying the initial May 5 deadline to opt out or object to the Google settlement until September 4, with a fairness hearing now set for October 7. The ruling leaves all other dates in place, at least for now, but raises questions about the deal's prospects for final approval.

Gail Knight Steinbeck, one of the driving forces behind the extension, said the delay would give everyone time to “really sink our teeth into what this agreement will mean.” She said that four months should be sufficient to consider whether the deal is more acceptable, to clarify for some stakeholders whether they should opt in or out—or, perhaps, to change or object to the deal.

Some suggested that the extension was the beginning of a major challenge to stop—or at least substantially alter—the existing settlement. “The extension is a big victory for those who oppose the Google book settlement,” John M. Simpson, an advocate for Consumer Watchdog, said. “It's a clear recognition by the judge that there are problems with the proposed deal,” Simpson asserted, adding that the delay gives the Justice Department “more time to consider the antitrust issues that we and others have raised and discussed with them.” The Department of Justice has contacted the parties involved in the settlement, but has not begun a formal investigation.

Authors Guild executive director Paul Aiken shrugged off the four-month extension. “We'd hoped for a shorter extension of time, since we're eager to get on to the next phase of the process,” he said. “It's not surprising, however. Nothing about this settlement has happened quickly.” In a court filing, the settlement parties rejected the idea that there was any problem with the settlement, but had offered a 60-day delay. Google attorney Alexander Macgillivray wrote on the company blog that Google offered the extra time so “rightsholders everywhere have enough time to think about [the settlement] and make sure it's right for them.” Work on developing the Book Rights Registry, which will clear rights and pay authors and rights holders, is continuing.

One observer close to the settlement, however, commenting on background, suggested that the 60-day offer hinted at looming trouble, comparing the situation to a congressional vote—if you believe you have enough votes to get a bill passed in Congress, the observer noted, you call a vote and get on with it. To agree to an extension suggests the parties believed there was at least some chance of the settlement's rejection.

James Grimmelmann, a New York Law School professor who has written extensively on the settlement, agreed that the extension was not necessarily good news for the deal. “Since the more you look at the settlement, the more worrying things you see, I'd agree that a delay increases the chances that it would be rejected or modified,” Grimmelmann said.

In recent weeks, as the approval process moved toward its initial May 5 deadline, resistance to the deal had stiffened. Critics, including the Internet Archive and major library groups, continued to raise questions about everything from antitrust concerns to the settlement's treatment of orphan works. Even some publishers have expressed uneasiness with the deal. The head of a midsize house said he hoped the agreement is altered to make it easier for a possible competitor to Google to emerge. The Internet Archive's Peter Brantley told PW the IA was interested in working with partners to “more squarely identify our concerns and articulate them to a broader audience.”

Although it remains to be seen what the next four months will bring, the deal, once on a very fast track, has been slowed considerably—and could be slowed even further. As increasing numbers of stakeholders scrutinize the deal in the coming weeks, the agreement could change, and if the deal is altered in any significant way, that could mean another round of notices would be required, and yet another delay on the road to final approval.