Fixing Class Action Lawsuits
from the objecting-to-settlements dept
For a long time, we've noted that while class action lawsuits do serve a useful purpose, it seems like all too often they're abused. Quite frequently, we see the only "class" that really benefits from such lawsuits are the lawyers who file the lawsuit, who end up taking the bulk of any "settlement." In some cases, it's even worse -- where not only do lawyers get the bulk of the settlement, the rest of the class actually gets pushed into buying more products from the company that was sued. Such class action lawsuits not only make the lawyers richer, they actually act as marketing for the company that was sued. One of the worst such cases we can remember involved Netflix, which "settled" a class action lawsuit by giving current customers a "free" one-month upgrade -- but if you didn't manually downgrade your account, they started charging you the higher price the following month. That's not a "settlement" so much as a way to get a bunch of customers to upgrade. If I remember correctly, that settlement was actually thrown out.Eric Goldman points us to an interesting profile of Ted Frank, a lawyer who is focusing on trying to stop such bad class action lawsuits and settlements by objecting to the settlements when they seem so far over the line. While, as the article notes, there have been a bunch of "professional settlment objectors" in the past, most have been doing it for money (getting some of the attorney's fees). Frank, however, hasn't taken attorney fees (though he says it's a possibility in the future), and is funded by a charity:
"The whole reason I started this is because there is a high probability of district courts rubber-stamping settlements," Frank says. "I think these are very bad settlements that the [9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] will ... provide guidance for when judges should or shouldn't approve settlements."Again, the concept of a class action lawsuit isn't bad, but it's definitely been widely abused -- so it's nice to see someone pushing back from within to try to stop the worst abuses.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: class action lawsuits, settlements, ted frank
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
By "all to often" you mean 99.99999999999% of the time, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sprint Bad
The catch, you had to be a Sprint customer. By that time, we had dropped Sprint. Sure, we could have "received" our $15.00 had we signed up for a new two year plan (even though we still had the old phone)!
Moreover, even if you were still a Sprint customer; you never actually saw the "refund" since it would appear as a deduction on your future bills.
Settlements such as these demonstrate how ridiculous class action lawsuits are. If the injured party only receives "coupons" that force them to buy from the company that hurt them - that is exactly how the lawyers should be paid; in coupons!
Another issue with class action lawsuits, to my knowledge, their is no commitment on the part of the company in stopping their abusive practices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cox Censorship
I think a class action lawsuit is the only option in such cases. In this case I want that outgoing message filter made illegal. HOw else can I stop this. We discovered that a neighboring tea party has been bblocked for six months and was never notified (see the blog post here about Cox doing that to people)
Do you have an alternative? I don't care about the money, but inhtis case they are setting precident for censorship by autonomous software review of content and outgoing mail patterns of an individual user to individual users without invalid addresses and with their permission.The comapny said they could do nothing about it and that I should send them one at a time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cox Censorship
Whether you realize it or not, your post actually raises a very subtle point of the net-neutrality debate. If the ISPs, such as COX, are not required to provide a neutral internet you will find a lot more "obstructions" than an inability to send email. We need guarantees for a neutral internet.
Actually, as I was writing this, it occurred to me that many of those in the tea party movement are against government involvement in a persons life. While I have no idea concerning your position on government regulation; I find it amusing that you would be complaining about what the company is allowing you to do on "their" network. Many people on the political "right" claim that companies can do whatever they want whenever they want. Customers have no rights. If you are a disgruntled consumer, too bad. Don't use Cox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cox Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cox Censorship
The issue of net neutrality is about the fact that net access is provided through an ISP�s bandwidth tunnel into one of the NAPs (Network Access Points) and that ISPs have been placing various types of restraint upon that bandwidth. All types of regulation have dangers with respect to access freedom and content control.
One view of regulation is that any kind of constraint on edge access to a NAP is illegal. Having no edge restriction will mean that content providers will have to provide content based access restriction instead of ISPs and edge networks. Some feel that no limitations would lead, in time, to content access based upon content provider memberships where control of content access is closest to a direct user-provider relationship and is open DNS access adverse. This idea is opposed by those fear an end to net anonymity and giving each provider and user a hard and legally binding ID. One consequence would be an end to the commercial marketing model currently used by the pornography industry
Another idea about regulation is to regulate a common set of access restraint and then build content filters into the edge networks for enforcement. The problem with a common set of access restraint regulations is that each and every issue based concept can ultimately place new restrictions in the mix.
Imagine the types of content constraint that could be added by religious movements or by enforcement agencies when the current net neutral concept is replaced and very different regulatory concept is imposed upon access. The Chinese, for example, use such a regulatory model. Google now wants to back out after they had agreed to that access restraint and are finding it not as easy as they thought.
Actually the need is not for net neutrality but for edge network access freedom. No regulatory body is empowered with the kind of infrastructure and tools that would be required to detect, validate and prosecute such a strategy except the national intelligence agencies. Not your first choice either I would guess, based upon your comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One product I complained about the manufacture clearly admitted guilt but since they had already settled a class action law suit I had to seek my damages from a law firm. I do not know which is worst - trying to get a basic repair cost out of a major company or hoping to get 10% of the repair cost covered from a law firm. The company has at least the interest of trying to keep me a future customer... the law firm not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cox Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]