Yet Again, Netflix Class Action Shows That Class Action Lawsuits Are Mostly About Making Lawyers Rich
from the not-stopping-people dept
For years, we've been pointing out that our class action lawsuit system is broken. It makes sense, in theory, that if a large group of people are wronged, they can team up to right that wrong—but in practice it has morphed into a system where a bunch of bottom-feeder lawyers sue just about any company at every opportunity... and then those lawyers end up taking the bulk of the money. The "class" (the people supposedly wronged) rarely get much, if any money at all. Of course, one of the first stories that clued me into all of this involved a settlement in a class action lawsuit against Netflix way back in 2005, in which the lawyers got $2.5 million... and everyone in the "class" just got their accounts upgraded for a month (and if you forgot to manually downgrade after that month was over, you were charged more). As I noted at the time, this seemed more like a promotional stunt for Netflix and a way for a bunch of lawyers to make a ton of money.So it's interesting to see that with yet another class action lawsuit being settled involving Netflix, there are similar concerns. A whole bunch of folks sent in variations on the fact that Netflix will be paying out $9 million with a grand total of none of it going to the class (unless you happened to be one of the two named plaintiffs -- Jeff Milans and Peter Comstock -- who get to split $30,000). Most of the money is going to a charity. But somewhere around $2.25 million is going to the lawyers.
To be clear, I think the lawsuit itself is a bit silly anyway. It involves the fact that Netflix retained info on customers who quit. Big whoop. But whether or not you agree with the premise of the lawsuit, the end result seems even sillier: those supposedly "harmed" get nothing, but the lawyers walk away with over $2 million? It's this kind of thing that creates incentives for more such lawsuits driven by law firms in the hopes of cashing in.
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, lawyers, settlements
Companies: netflix
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sounds like the Limewire case all over again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I worked at Netflix as a CSR in their call center when the settlement upgrades were done and they automatically downgraded when the month was over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Would it be worthwhile at all to object to the settlement on the ground that the attorney fees are unreasonable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Rubbish
There is no way to do anything. No info on how to object or remove yourself from the suit. It's rubbish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He really is all-powerful, huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Rubbish
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Rubbish
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If that is true, and normally i agree with the things mike brings up, but this time i have to disagree wholeheartedly with your stance on this
I dont think its okay to have personal information stored about you, especially if you dont know about it and have not given express information, so basically the way the internet is run today
Opt-in, never by default
Unless there is a clear message that something as small as this is unacceptable, well then thats equivalent to giving permission to governments to expand
I cant believe you dont see that possibility mike, however slim, its still a baby step into that possibility, and i dont mean to have a go, because normally we are of like mind on most issues, but im a little surpised about this one, but, unlike some people i can respect that, thats your opinion, but i cant say i agree at all
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"I dont think its okay to have personal information stored about you, especially if you dont know about it and have not given express !!!!PERMISSION!!!, so basically the way the internet is run today"
My bad
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Yes
NEW TO TECHDIRT!!!
WE now allow reporting of spammers! THIS WEEK ONLT!!!! BUY IT NOW BEFORE IT SELLS OUT!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes
That's 2 spams for three easy and one complex payment of $9.99. Act now! Operators are standing by!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I'm assuming "wrongs" was meant to read "wrong"
If "wrongs" was meant to read "wronged", then what makes you think the lawyers' cut is at the expense of the wronged (who would be getting nothing *and* subject to the same behavior in the future if not for the lawyers' filing suit)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The letters usually suggest I might win as much as... enough for a couple meals at McDonald's.
I always wonder why I should bother? Maybe somebody who is bored and has absolutely nothing to do or particularly feels a need to "stick it to the man" might bother, but I never put more than enough energy into it than to read the letter, and then shred it. Or maybe file it with my receipts for the month.
Of course, if somebody were to send me a letter like that suggesting I might actually pocket enough to make it worth my while... I'd probably figure it was a scam and shred it anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The only case I've ever seen where you had to take positive action to get a cut was a credit card case where you had to say how much time you spent outside the U.S. during a certain time frame.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Class action lawsuits are gangs for white people." - @zgbetty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wouldn't that be "industry standards" for most legal teams? If so, I don't see the get-rich-quick scheme here since most class actions require years to get to court, investigation, multiple offices, etc.
I don't work with law but with all the talk about "tort reform" I started paying attention a few years ago.
A lot of these cases, particularly with the bulk being given to charity, aren't about getting restitution for victims but serve to enforce laws that exist when other methods fail - such as regulatory agencies.
They are designed to teach a company "a lesson" by hurting them in the pocketbook (whether the costs are passed on to consumers is something else).
There was a case against the majority of sunscreen manufacturers for misleading claims, regulated by FDA - cases of skin cancers rose because of the misinformation. The bulk of the award went to charity. Yet the case changed sunscreen definitions, advertising, etc.
The tobacco awards didn't go to victims. The money funded all sorts of things for the states. I can see the same thing happening with the case against mortgage lenders that was recently signed off on. The goal was to change the way manufacturers/lenders/companies did business and it was usually 1) against the law, 2) failed to be enforced through any other method, 3) last resort.
I'm not a lawyer but I assume that's why the RIAA turned to class action suits - and why they failed, as they should have. The tables can turn at anytime, but the lawyers fighting class action suits for the John and Jane Does are more like heros and I bet they earned every penny.
But even in those cases, I thought it was the judge that set the fees the lawyers would get, win or loose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Epson had a class action against it because their ink was designed to "run out" before the ink had run out. That gets expensive particularly since Epson required their own brand of micronized ink to work. I got a set of free cartridges (whooppee) out of the deal - and bought Canon next time.
But that was pretty shifty of Epson to do. Same with the credit card company padding the exchange rates. They had to stop doing it. I think of class actions more like signing onto a petition with more bite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Funny, I thought that was a feature.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Well, I'm confused. Mike says this: "To be clear, I think the lawsuit itself is a bit silly anyway. It involves the fact that Netflix retained info on customers who quit. Big whoop." But then at other times, he's livid when privacy laws aren't broader or better enforced. Seems like he was willing to brush over the privacy violation on Netflix's part just so he could whine about the attorneys' fees.
I don't know the facts here, but usually when there's cy pres like this it's because it's not economically feasible to pay each member of the class. Money going to charity is a good thing. NFLX having to pay for violating federal privacy law is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Usually, the parties agree to a settlement, which the judge has to approve. The judge doesn't just decide.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CRAZY
If the settlement is approved, the subscribers won't get anything (not even a one month upgrade this time) but the LAWYERS will get a HEFTY $2.25 MILLION PLUS EXPENSES for working so hard to ensure that the evil Netflix will delete our old viewing history after a year AFTER we stop subscribing?!!!
Something seems wrong. The complaint was only filed in September, so it's not even as if it was a long negotiation.
Charities will get about 6 Million, which you can't really complain about.... but --here's an idea-- wouldn't it be even better if the lawyers waived part of their fees so the charities could get MORE? I mean $1 MILLION + EXPENSES for their "hard work" seems more than adequate.
What is really going on here? I'm curious: Does anyone know if the "plantiffs" usually (legally?) get a kickback from the law firms?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I never opted IN to this class action and they have zero legal right to automatically opt me in. In fact the attorneys for the plaintiffs violated my privacy rights by getting my information in the FIRST place, maybe we need to get together and file a class action AGAINST the plaintiffs Attorneys for VIOLATING our rights. Much less making it really hard to opt-out. Since the statement only came in email and not certified mail, I will consider that I was NOT legally informed and if I am barred from filing against Netflix if I so choose, I will sue the plaintiffs and their attorneys. All this accomplishes is the scumbag lawyers making a lot of money and us "victims" paying more for the service because of it. What we really need is more dead lawyers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Couldn't agree more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow really?
This is another one of Americas finest bs lawsuits all over again and I have to admit, it sickens me for two reasons.
1- I get nothing.
2- It's frivolous to begin with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Netflix suit making lawyers rich
http://www.edelson.com/insidethefirm/#page_4
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Class action re: netflix, WHO AUTHORIZED FIRM TO REPRESENT ANYONE OF US ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
without written consent, client notifications(s) MALFEASANCE, + A LOT MORE
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: objection to settlement
If ALL of the charity went to something like the EFF, I'd feel much better. Unfortunately, there's currently NO indication as to what charity the money is going to be directed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Rubbish
Don't know about you, but I don't care enough to actually sit down and write a letter about this non-sense...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
objection
http://nytechlitigation.com/netflix-privacy-lawsuit-objectionst/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Netflix suit making lawyers rich
I am sick to death of greedy lawyers who do absolutely NOTHING that benefits anyone but themselves ... this is what the law is in America these days ... it is a really really bad joke ... The amount of money being paid to them for this is shameful and offensive, hell, the amount of money being charged by lawyers these days all but assures that no "little man" who is truly being wronged and needs help will EVER be heard. I know ... I've been that little man many times over and have not been able to afford to properly defend myself even once. The only satisfaction I have ever received from the law has come from being able to represent myself in small claims ... how convenient that us do it yourselfers get capped at 5,000. I have a woman who has stolen 35,000 worth of merchandise from me and in order to get any justice for this I have to file small claims and hope to be awarded 5,000 in damages which this criminal will obviously never pay. I'm ranting right now because this is how angry I am at this "law for the rich and rich are the law" state that we live in. The Matthew Effect is in full swing on these United Shores . I cannot even vocalize my disgust properly with the limited words available to me in my native language.
In this instance it is MY privacy that was violated. I believe that the lawyers should be regulated to be paid a specific percentage of the award they obtain for the wronged and I believe the wronged in this day and age can take a majority vote on whether to give that money over to programs or charities should they wish too. My experience has taught me that most non-profits are even more shady than the lawyers in this country. Altruism exists behind a human heart, not a large table with directors and board members ... that concept is simply fantastical hypocrisy we allow ourselves to believe in order to subdue our own guilt at not putting any of our own time toward helping anyone else.
Most mind blowing of all? The lawyers at this firm made a conscious choice to use a photo of themselves playing wii games on their big screen TV as the only visual image on their home page website. Seriously ... mind officially blown. I believe this says it all.
I will be objecting to this case and I encourage you to do the same ... just write a letter, that's all it takes. I don't care if you have to scribble it in crayon ... just do it. Stop being a pawn in this vile game of greed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
opt out / object to netflix settlement
http://www.thewiseguys.com/2012/07/27/netflix-class-action-lawsuit-settlement-screws-members/ #comment-377
[ link to this | view in thread ]
every minute
[ link to this | view in thread ]