The settlement in this antitrust price-fixing case unlawfully reduces the recovery of those class members who have stronger claims than others. In this type of settlement, relief distributed pro rata to a nationwide class is a false justice because those with legitimate claims receive less relief than they deserve while class members with no legal claim stand to receive an undeserved windfall.
William Chamberlain said the settlement offered little more to consumers than a 22-word statement set to be posted on a seldom-viewed Facebook help page. Chamberlain also objected to the more than $3.8 million in fees and costs the plaintiffs' legal team requested for its work.
Class Attorneys Poised to Rake in $745k while class gets $10 coupons Objecting today to the class action settlement in Knapp v. Art.com, the CCenter for Class Action Fairness (CCAF) opposes the settlement which provides class members with a $10 voucher while class counsel rakes in $745,000 in fees. “This settlement exemplifies the abusive coupon settlements that Congress tried to stop with the Class Action Fairness Act,” said CCAF attorney Ted Frank.…
Washington Examiner cites Anna St. John's piece on a class action suit involving the Metropolitan Museum of Art and how similar suits can harm cultural institutions. ... Cultural institutions harmed by lawsuits Anna St. John for the Competitive Enterprise Institute: A New York trial court recently approved a class-action settlement in a case filed against the Metropolitan Museum of Art based on its allegedly deceptive admissions policy. The settlement requires the Met…
This week, 13 state attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF) and its objection to a consumer privacy class action settlement involving Google because it provides millions of dollars to attorneys and zero dollars to the class.
Last week, CEI’s Center for Class Action Fairness’ (CCAF) Anna St. John objected to an unfair class action settlement in Campbell v. Facebook. This case was centered around the theory that Facebook illegally analyzed URLs that users sent over private messages. CCAF has taken on some egregious settlements, but this one is especially ridiculous. Here are seven reasons why: CCAF found out and objected to…
Not only did class counsel make no effort to distribute any money to the class here, but there are obvious conflicts of interest associated with the cy pres recipients, Frank asserted, noting that Google is a regular donor to four of the entities and co-lead class counsel Brian Strange is board chairman of another, Public Counsel.
The settlement requires the Met to implement meaningless changes such as referring to its admission price as “suggested” rather than “recommended” in its signs and ticket kiosks. It also requires the Met to pay $350,000 in attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs’ lawyers who filed the case.
The Center for Class Action Fairness filed its opening brief challenging a class action settlement in a consumer privacy case against Google because it provides millions of dollars to attorneys and zero dollars to the class.
The Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF) filed an objection arguing against a cynical settlement in a Facebook class action that provides $3.9 million in fees and expenses to the plaintiffs’ attorneys and only a vague 22-word addition to Facebook’s “Help Center” for the class members.
