Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation

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.

Berry v. LexisNexis

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.

Poertner v. Gillette Co.

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.

Richardson v. L’Oreal USA

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.

Search this website Type then hit enter to search