MEMORANDUM & ORDER Joanne Hart and Sandra Bueno (“Plaintiffs”) bring this class-action lawsuit for fraud, breach of warranty, and violations of the California Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) against Defendants BHH, LLC and Van Hauser, LLC (“BHH”). Plaintiffs move for final approval of a settlement agreement with BHH, (ECF No. 308), and an award for attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and an incentive award for the class representatives, (ECF No. 301). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the class settlement agreement is granted, and Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ ultrasonic pest repellers failed to work as advertised. The Proposed Settlement is the culmination of five years of intense litigation. The parties briefed and argued — and this Court decided — two motions to dismiss, three Daubert motions, a motion for class certification, a motion for summary judgment, and countless housekeeping motions.1 This case was on track for trial when the parties settled. On September 3, 2019, Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of their settlement agreement. This Court denied that motion. See Hart v. BHH, LLC, 334 F.R.D. 74 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). First, the proposed settlement included a “quick pay” provision that would compensate the attorneys before class members. Plaintiffs argued this provision would disincentivize baseless objections. But that hypothetical risk does not outweigh the “sound reasons for courts to ensure that the class has been compensated prior to attorneys in class action settlements.” Hart, 334 F.R.D. at 77. “Cynically, money is the best way to keep lawyers engaged.” Hart, 334 F.R.D. at 77. Second, the parties proposed to arbitrate the award of attorneys’ fees, which they determined would range from $3,000,000 to $7,500,000. However, arbitration would usurp this Court’s discretion to award fees and eviscerate its duty to “‘act as a fiduciary who must serve as a guardian of the rights of absent class members.’” Hart, 334 F.R.D. at 78 (quoting McDaniel v. Cty. of Schenectady, 595 F.3d 411, 419 (2d Cir. 2010). After this Court denied their motion, the parties amended their settlement agreement to remove the “quick-pay” provision and Plaintiffs abandoned arbitration and agreed to seek no more than $6,500,000 in attorneys’ fees from the Court (the “Proposed Settlement”). (ECF No. 296-1.) This Court then preliminarily approved the Proposed Settlement. (ECF No. 300.) The Proposed Settlement seeks to provide class members with refunds for pest repeller purchases. Class members are not required to provide proof of purchase — other than a signed attestation on the claims form. (Decl. of Yitz Kopel, ECF No. 305 (“Kopel Decl.”), 61.) If a class member provides proof of purchase that shows the purchase price, they will receive a full refund for up to six units. (Kopel Decl. 61.) If the proof of purchase does not contain the price, the class member will receive $15 per unit for up to six units. (Kopel Decl. 61.) If a class member does not provide proof of purchase, he or she will receive $15 per unit for up to two units. (Kopel Decl. 61.) Defendants will pay all attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive awards separate from its payment to class members. (Kopel Decl. 62.) Plaintiffs seek incentive awards of $5,000 for each of the two class representatives. Class Counsel seek $6,500,000 in attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. This includes $5,799,772.43 in attorneys’ fees and $700,227.57 in litigation costs and expenses. As of August 31, 2020, Class Counsel billed 4,475.25 hours. (Kopel Decl., Ex. B; Decl. of Scott D. Simpkins, ECF No. 304 (“Simpkins Decl.”), 4.) This yields a lodestar amount of $2,651,175.00. (Kopel Decl. Ex. B; Simpkins Decl. 4.) Defendants challenge the $3,148,597.43 enhancement sought by Class Counsel beyond the loadstar amount. Digital Settlement Group, LLC (“DSG”) is the court-appointed notice and claims administrator. (ECF No. 300, at 4.) DSG sent approximately 900,000 notices to potential class members and published the notice on a website it created. (Decl. of Mark Schey, ECF No. 311 (“Schey Decl.”),
