In re Samsung Top-Load Washing Machine Marketing Sales Practices

Docket number: 17-ml-2792-D (W.D. Okla.)

Samsung sold top-loading washing machines that sometimes violently vibrate and “explode,” and an enormous recall campaign was announced with the Consumer Product Safety Commission in 2016. Afterwards, numerous class actions were filed, consolidated in the Western District of Oklahoma, and settled in 2018.

Under the settlement, most of the 2.8 million class members who purchased the allegedly defective washers can only obtain rebates to buy a new Samsung appliance. Only 65,000 claims had been received within the first few months of settlement, and the vast majority of claims were for rebate coupons, which require class members to buy a new Samsung appliance to get one cent of recovery. Class counsel argued that the settlement was worth “a minimum” of $65 million, but only reaches this figure by imagining every class member goes through the effort of buying a new Samsung appliance and then sending in a mail-in rebate.

In fact, the settlement likely provides less money than the $6.55 million amount for attorneys’ fee and costs that attorneys bargained for themselves. The settlement provided that Samsung would not oppose a request for fees and costs up to this amount, and that any unawarded money would remain with Samsung rather than benefit the class (a “kicker” provision).

Class member John Dale Morgan, represented by the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute’s Center for Class Action Fairness, objects. Because of the kicker provision, Morgan asks that the settlement be rejected in its entirety. Attorneys should not be able to guarantee a generous fee award for themselves while class members are stuck at best with rebate coupons that require them to buy again from the allegedly negligent defendant. If the settlement is approved, the objection further argued, attorneys’ fees should be based on the value actually redeemed by the class.

Morgan’s objection was argued at a fairness hearing on October 7, 2019. The court has allowed additional briefing through March 2, 2020.

On May 22, 2020, the district court denied Morgan’s motion and granted final approval to the settlement, but deferred the issue of attorneys’ fees so that it could more carefully review class counsel’s detailed billing. On June 11, the court issued its fee order, granting only $3.8 million of the requested $6 million.

Morgan has appealed final approval of the Settlement to the Tenth Circuit, where he was supported by an amicus brief from nine states. However, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court and Morgan elected not to proceed further, having at least successfully reduced the excessive fee request.

Case Documents