In re JUUL Labs, Inc. Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation

Docket number: 19-md-02913 (N.D. Cal.)

Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute represents an objector challenging the fairness of a settlement that pays class counsel $76,500,000 in attorneys’ fees, and deducts $5 million more in expenses and service awards, a total Rule 23(h) request of about 32% of the total settlement fund, well above the standard 25% benchmark, and—more importantly—well above the 15 to 20 percent typical of settlements of similar size.

The settlement arises from a consumer class action alleging nicotine vape manufacturer Juul Labs, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged that Juul targeted young people crating and fueling a “vaping crisis.” The parties settled the litigation for more than $250 million and class counsel formally sought a fee and costs award north of $80 million. Objecting on behalf of Reilly Stephens, HLLI argued an award of $38.25 million, representing approximately 15% of the settlement fund, was more that fair recompense for class counsel’s work and in keeping with fee requests typical for similar large settlements.

Objector Stephens also opposed another group of objectors to the settlement represented by Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI). The PHAI objectors proposed siphoning off another $30 million of the settlement in order to underwrite third-party research as so-called cy pres relief. Stephens’ July 21 opposition pointed out that PHAI’s proposal contradicted Ninth Circuit precedents and would cost the class about 11% of their total benefit under the settlement. A fairness hearing occurred August 9, 2023.

On September 19, the district court granted final approval, but deferred its decision on the attorneys’ fee award. The district court denied PHAI’s suggestion to award cy pres relief off the top of the settlement fund, apparently crediting Stephen’s argument that cy pres may only be used to distribute otherwise unclaimed settlement fund.

Case Documents