CCAF objected to the class action settlement negotiated by the plaintiffs' lawyers because it provided $0 to class members and $8.5 million to be divided between the plaintiffs’ lawyers – who received $1000/hour on this case – and third-party cy pres recipients, including class counsel's alma maters, and several organizations that Google already supports through donations.
“Because Cotchett Pitre was lead counsel, the conflict of interest infects all of their co-counsel, none of whom bothered to notify this court of the conflict of interest, notwithstanding their affirmative obligation to do so under [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure],” the motion said.
.76 percent of battery buyers filed claims to receive $3 or $6. If all of those claims turn out to be valid, McComb said in the declaration, the settlement fund will disburse $344,850 to class members. But remember: The settlement is supposed to be worth $49 million — the number on which plaintiffs lawyers have based their fee request. Even counting the $6 million in Duracell products that will be distributed to charities if the settlement is approved and the injunction against false labels the defendants agreed to, there’s an awfully big gap between the alleged value of the deal and the actual cash benefit to the class.
In a unanimous ruling, the court agreed with objector Theodore Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness that Ware -- who is now retired, so another judge will reconsider the award -- "rubber-stamped" a deal that "structured to obscure actual relief" through Apple's agreement in advance to pay the suing legal firms up to $3 million of the award in attorney's fees and $100,000 in expenses, which the court said "cannot relieve the district court of its duty to assess fully the reasonableness of the fee request."
The Center for Class Action Fairness, in its objection, noted that the settlement seemed designed to discourage consumers from actually collecting anything. While Apple had electronic records of MacBook purchasers who had replaced their power supplies and most of the procedures were online, the lawyers required their clients to submit refund forms in writing.
CCAF appealed the district court’s approval of a settlement over data marketing practices, from which class members cannot even opt out, and under which class members receive only injunctive relief that was forbidden by statute, while plaintiffs’ lawyers are awarded over $5.3M. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the settlement and the Center asked for rehearing.
CCAF objected in Poertner v. Gillette Co., a settlement of consumer fraud claims over Duracell batteries where the attorneys received $5.7 million and the class only $0.3 million, and appealed it to the Supreme Court, which unfortunately declined to review the case. CCAF’s objection, however, led class counsel to admit that the vast majority of consumer fraud settlements leave more than 99% of class members uncompensated.
On Wednesday, Bates sided with the objectors. He denied approval of the settlement, finding that it unfairly released class claims for monetary damages.
The district court sustained the Center’s objection to a settlement over shampoo labeling where the class would receive valueless injunctive relief and the attorneys sought nearly $1M for themselves.
CCAF successfully objected to a settlement that paid $1 million to plaintiffs' lawyers and provided only $830,000 in coupons to class members.
