The Center For Class Action Fairness at HLLI

The Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF) represents consumers and shareholders pro bono against abusive class action settlements. It has won hundreds of millions for consumers and shareholders, by persuading courts to curtail excess fees or to reject proposed settlements, which often results in improved settlements that winds more money for class members.

CCAF has set leading precedents concerning class action settlements, which safeguard consumers, investors, courts, and the general public.

 

Named plaintiffs are usually cat’s paws of the class lawyers.

— Judge Richard Posner, In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litig.

What is a Class Action Objection?

A class action is a procedural device that groups together claims to make it practical to file a lawsuitClass attorneys control litigation by recruiting a small number of named plaintiffs who theoretically represent in the class. 

In fact, named plaintiffs rarely control the suit; in fact, they can be replaced if they do not cooperate with class attorneys. 

Class actions rarely go to trial. When thee attorneys reach a proposed settlement, the presiding court orders notice sent to class members. This is often a postcard or an email. The notice contains the deadline for class members to object. 

Objections are the only real opportunity for class members to oppose attorney-driven settlements.

After the objection deadline, the court holds a “fairness hearing” and decides whether to grant final approval of the proposed settlement and attorneys’ request for fees.

Why Do We Represent Objectors?

When plaintiffs and defendants tell courts that they have settled a case,  courts are generally happy to get a case off their calendar. This is a problem because defendants have an incentive to settle as cheaply as possible, and attorneys have an incentive to win the largest fee possible. Without adversarial objections, settlements tend to provide more befit to attorneys than the class.

What Kinds of Objections Do You Make?

Most CCAF objections involve gimmicks that attorneys use to exaggerate the value of the settlement to as an excuse to seek excessive attorneys’ fees. Common gimmicks include:

  • Cy pres: diverting money to third party charities, often chosen for the benefit of the defendant and class attorneys.
  • Coupon settlements: seeking attorneys fees for a settlement that provides “vouchers” that few class members will use.
  • Claims-made settlements: imposing a claims process that does not contain a guaranteed fund, and misrepresenting its likely value.
  • Worthless injunctions: seeking fees for providing disclaimers or commitments by defendant, which provide nothing to the class.

Additionally, CCAF objects to megafund” fee requests. Attorneys usually seek 25-33% of class recovery. This is fair in smaller settlements that provide the claimed benefits without gimmicks. But in very large settlements with high intrinsic value, where recovery exceeds tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, high percentage fee awards result in a windfall. 

Finally, CCAF objects to class representation problems: where class members with valuable claims are lumped together with class members with worthless claims. This dilutes recovery to consumers who should be compensated due to their real damages or state laws that provide statutory damages for things like data breaches.

A lawsuit is a fruit tree planted in a lawyer’s garden.

— Italian proverb

Our Current Class Action Objections

Sign up to our email list

“The U.S. could use more Ted Franks.”
𝘞𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘑𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭
“The legendary class action watchdog.”
𝘙𝘦𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴
"The leading critic of abusive class action settlements is Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness….”
𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘠𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘛𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴
“…indefatigable scourge of underwhelming class action settlements….”
𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘓𝘢𝘸𝘺𝘦𝘳 𝘓𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘋𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘺
“Aside from the results of the cases he has won, Frank’s work has helped highlight the abuses rampant in class action litigation.”
𝘞𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘌𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘳
“Mr. Frank argued his own case on Wednesday, a rarity in the Supreme Court, and exhibited comprehensive knowledge of the law...”
𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘠𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘛𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴
Search this website Type then hit enter to search