CCAF challenged strike suit that provided meaningless disclosures, prompting Seventh Circuit to adopt “plainly material” standard in order to approve such settlements. “Strike suits affect over 97 percent of mergers, costing businesses millions. We hope other courts follow Delaware and the Seventh Circuit in taking steps to shut down this racket.”
CCAF objected to the settlement that would pay class counsel $2 million and would leave the class members with nothing but valueless labeling changes on a product defendant was no longer selling.
The terms of the deal provided a $10 million fund to class members that, in reality, is unlikely to be exhausted, gave class counsel a disproportionate $6.75 million fee, and left a large subclass of class members with zero recovery.
The Ninth Circuit declined to find that an intraclass conflicts that preclude a finding of adequate representation. That said, the district court reduced class counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses by over $5.1 million, for the benefit of the class.
In a false advertising case, the Center objected to the settlement that gave class counsel $4.75M because it was based on an exaggerated value ($18.5M) of unidentified labeling changes. The district court approved the settlement, but reduced the fee request by $1.2M. The Center did not appeal.
The Center for Class Action Fairness successfully objected to the settlement of an antitrust case where the class would only receive injunctive relief of uncertain value while class counsel seeks $75 million in fees.
CCAF successfully sought discovery from class counsel regarding their lodestar (the actual time class counsel spent on the case) and their track record in other TCPA class actions. Discovery revealed that class counsel was requesting over $5300/hour for this case and was routinely compensated over $1000/hour, win or lose, for so-called "risky" TCPA litigation.
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.
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.
