Plaintiffs’ lawyers sought $22.5M for themselves and $8M in reimbursements for the class, while also excluding certain class members from their share of the $8M. Finding those class members inadequately represented, the Third Circuit reversed settlement approval.
In this settlement over insurance pricing, the Center’s client objected that plaintiffs’ lawyers sought $6.6M when the class would only receive $2.8M; in response, the parties modified the settlement to provide the class an additional $2M.
The Center for Class Action Fariness's client objected to this settlement over fuel-economy advertising because plaintiffs’ lawyers sought nearly $3M for themselves and merely coupons for the class. The district court sustained the objection, rejecting the settlement.
In this settlement over a data security breach, plaintiffs’ lawyers were seeking $1.87M for themselves and only vouchers for the class: the district court upheld the objection and the settlement was renegotiated to yield cash to the class.
In a groundbreaking opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that the court failed to justify the high attorneys’ fees and the questionable settlement provisions that protected those fees. Bluetooth has been cited in hundreds of cases and numerous courts have relied on CCAF's precedent-setting victory.
_%E2%80%93_Frontansicht,_1._Juni_2013,_Ratingen.jpg){kind=link}