In re Online DVD Antitrust Litigation: adverse decision and en banc petition

You might recall the settlement approval in Online DVD Antitrust Litigation we briefed back in 2012. A district court held that the Wal-Mart $12.03 "gift cards" the settlement awarded weren't "coupons," refused to apply the Class Action Fairness Act, and awarded fees based on the face value of the coupons.

On February 27, the Ninth Circuit, in a Judge Sidney Thomas opinion, affirmed.

Wait a second! careful readers exclaim, Didn't you already win that exact issue on appeal?!

Yep. Appellees made the same arguments about "settlement vouchers" and attorney-fee calculations in Redman v. RadioShack Corp., 768 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2014), and that court, in a Judge Posner opinion, rejected them in a lengthy and lively discussion that was widely discussed.

So what did the Ninth Circuit say to reject the contrary Seventh Circuit case?

Absolutely nothing. They didn't mention it once, though we filed a Rule 28(j) letter in September.

Was there another appellate precedent that they followed instead?

Nope. Some district courts make the same mistake that Redman criticized (though some don't), and the Ninth Circuit followed those cases without mentioning the others while creating a circuit split.

What now?

Well, we've asked for rehearing or rehearing en banc. If we don't get correction, we have an interesting circuit split to put before the Supreme Court in a certiorari petition.

Victory! Redman v. Radioshack

CCAF won a tremendous victory for class members in Redman v. Radioshack, just eleven days after oral argument!

Judge Richard Posner, a legal authority renowned worldwide, wrote an excellent and accessible opinion, explaining that class action plaintiffs' attorneys' fees must be proportionate to the benefit they've realized for their clients, and that a coupon is a coupon regardless of the percentage discount that it represents.

You can read more about the underlying case here. The oral argument made headlines last week, and is also a fun listen. (Ted Frank appears at 9:40 and 54:55.)

Redman v. RadioShack, Inc. / oral argument today

As we discussed earlier, class counsel agreed to a settlement over RadioShack credit-card receipt legality that would have paid themselves $1 million, but the 16-million-member class 83 thousand coupons with a face value of $10. The district court approved the settlement because (1) it held the $2.25 million spent to distribute those coupons was a class benefit and (2) the coupons weren't "coupons." Oral argument is scheduled this morning in the Seventh Circuit. Some time this afternoon or tomorrow, a recording of the argument will be available online.

• Opening brief
• Plaintiffs-appellees' brief
• Defendant-appellee's brief
• Reply brief

The reply brief was fun, as plaintiffs were forced to defend an indefensible argument. From pages 5-6:

1.                  Plaintiffs rely on a logical fallacy.

It is not unfair to summarize plaintiffs’ proposed syllogism as follows:

1.         There exist websites that offer coupons where each coupon provides only a partial discount. PB26.

2.         There exists legislative history that criticizes a coupon settlement where the coupons offered provided only partial discounts. PB24-25; PB28.

3.         Therefore all “coupons” provide only partial discounts.

4.         Therefore a voucher for a free product is not a “coupon.” PB29-31.

The formal fallacy in plaintiffs’ logic is even more apparent in the following analogy:

1.         There exists a dog racing track where each racing dog is a greyhound.

2.         Actor Leonard Nimoy owns a dog that is a greyhound.

3.         Therefore all dogs are greyhounds.

4.         Therefore a collie is not a dog.

Nimoy’s most famous character had a catchphrase for this.[5]

---

[5] Cf. Leonard Nimoy, Highly Illogical on Two Sides of Leonard Nimoy (Dot Records 1968). Or, as Woody Allen once said, “All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore all men are Socrates.” Love and Death (United Artists 1975).

Opening brief in Redman v. RadioShack

RadioShack committed the sin of printing credit-card receipts with expiration dates on them, which exposed it to possible liability of $100 a receipt ($1000 if willful), a bankrupting sum. Class counsel settled for coupons. Our clients objected that the settlement did not comply with CAFA's limitations on coupon settlements, and was structured so that class counsel's benefit would outstrip that of the class. As is typical in coupon settlements these days, the settling parties denied that the coupons were coupons. For some reason, the district court bought the argument, and awarded $1M in attorneys' fees while the 16-million-member class will receive 83 thousand coupons with a face-value of $10, give or take. We've appealed, and filed our opening brief April 16.

Korean Air and Asiana Airlines coupon settlement

At first glance, the Korean Air Passenger Settlement looks pretty good: $50 million in cash for class members. You have to dive very deep in the papers (it's nowhere in the notice) to find out that the attorneys are going to ask for $21.5 million of that cash. They justify this by valuing coupons with face value of $36 million at $36 million, but we know from the Class Action Fairness Act and In re HP Inkjet Printer Litig. that you're not allowed to do that. Tsk, tsk. (And, of course, 25% is likely excessive even if the settlement was worth $86 million, given that the lawsuit just piggybacked on a government antitrust investigation. But, of course, the court is never going to hear that unless a class member comes forward and objects, or retains counsel (perhaps pro bono counsel?) to represent them at the fairness hearing. The class consists of:

All persons and entities (excluding governmental entities, Defendants, and Defendants’ respective predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates) who purchased Passenger Air Transportation on [Korean Air or Asiana Airlines], or any predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate of the Defendants, at any time during the time period January 1, 2000 through August 1, 2007. As used in this definition, “affiliates” means entities controlling, controlled by, or under common control with a Defendant [and does not include travel agents]. “Passenger Air Transportation” means passenger air transportation service purchased in the United States for flights originating in the United States and ending in the Republic of Korea (“Korea”) or flights originating in Korea and ending in the United States.

There is a claim form online if you want your cash and coupons; class members should get formal notice shortly. One of the lead class counsel is Jeff Westerman, who you might remember from his Milberg days for his role in the NVIDIA settlement bait-and-switch where he hired an expert witness to testify against letting class members recover what the settlement notice told them they'd recover. So one is skeptical when one reads in the settlement that "Korean Air and Class Counsel shall set the maximum coupon redemption value per ticket by mutual agreement."

Redman v. Radio Shack

Redman v. Radio Shack Corp., No. 11-cv-06741 (N.D. Ill.) is a class action alleging a right to statutory recovery for Radio Shack's practice of printing expiration dates on credit-card receipts. The settlement provides $1M in attorneys' fees and $10 coupons to the class, without any mechanism to track redemptions required to justify such a large fee. Of course, there will be nowhere near the hundreds of thousands of claims comprising "settlement value" given the difficulty of making a claim, so the settlement also provide cy pres of leftover coupons to the Boys and Girls Club. Except Section 1712(e) of the Class Action Fairness Act explicitly prohibits the use of cy pres coupons for calculating fee awards. The settlement class is defined as

All persons who, between August 24, 2010 and November 21, 2011, paid by credit or debit card for products or services and received an electronically-printed receipt from any Store that contained the expiration date of the person's credit or debit card.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendant, its officers, employees, and attorneys; transactions conducted with business credit or debit cards; and transactions made with RadioShack-branded debit or credit cards, as those cards do not contain expiration dates.

One hopes a class member aggrieved by this lawyers-first settlement will contact a non-profit attorney willing to help them object to a settlement with such an unfair and illegal fee request.

Victory in HP Inkjet

A 2-1 decision of the Ninth Circuit agreed with us that the district court incorrectly applied the coupon-valuation provision of the Class Action Fairness Act in the HP Inkjet case. Details (and a list of press coverage) at Point of Law. After two appellate wins in 2011, and two in 2012, this is our third in 2013, and the year isn't half over.

This week's fairness hearing on the Southwest drink voucher class action settlement raised similar issues and discussed the import of the Inkjet decision; plaintiffs' counsel there claimed that they were told by Inkjet counsel that they plan to seek en banc review. If they do, the petition would be due next week.

Southwest Airlines drink voucher coupon settlement

Southwest gives away "premium drink" (i.e., "beer") coupons worth $5 to customers who buy a Business Select ticket. Of course, not everyone drinks, and half of the coupons are thrown away. After giving out 11 million or so of these coupons, Southwest changed its policy and held that the premium drink vouchers were only good on the day of the flight for which they were sold. A class action was born, alleging bait and switch. There's a lot of publicity over the settlement; Southwest Airlines is giving away new coupons, i.e., free beer. Press coverage accepts the claim of class counsel that the coupons, which will expire in a year, and are only good in flight, are worth "perhaps more than $29 million"; papers in support of the settlement go even further and ascribe a value of up to $58 million. Thus, the attorneys will ask for $7 million. [preliminary approval order; Chi Trib; L&S; h/t LAN3]

Thing is, we know from decades of history of coupon settlements that less than $1 million of these coupons are going to get used; heck less than $1 million are likely to be claimed. The settlement is worth "perhaps more than $29 million" only in the sense that "perhaps" the atoms in the chair you are sitting on will all simultaneously shift one foot to the left. Customers are getting notified by email, but the vouchers aren't being sent to them by email. That's because Southwest wants to limit its liability, but the attorneys want to maximize their payout; they both have the incentive to exaggerate the true value of the settlement. If they told the court the settlement was worth less than $1 million to the class, the court might ask questions why a disproportionate share is reserved for the attorneys; if they asked the court to follow the strictures of the Class Action Fairness Act, which requires attorney awards to be tied to the value of redeemed coupons, the attorneys would have no chance at $7 million.

One hopes a class member sees through this misleading unfairness, and finds pro bono counsel willing to object.

 The class consists of "All Southwest customers who purchased an Eligible Drink Voucher through the purchase of a Business Select ticket or otherwise, during the time period before August 1, 2010, but who did not redeem the Eligible Drink Voucher. The Class does not include Southwest customers who obtained drink vouchers or drink coupons through the Southwest Rapid Rewards program, unless those customers separately purchased, but did not redeem, Eligible Drink Vouchers through the purchase of a Business Select ticket or otherwise." The case is In re Southwest Airlines Voucher Litigation, No. 11-cv-8176 (N.D. Ill.).

Other December doings

In addition to the objection to the Citigroup Securities settlement, we were busy in December:

• Another bad coupon settlement: In re EasySaver Rewards Litig., No. 09-cv-2094 (S.D. Cal.). The $20 face value of the coupons is illusory, because the coupons preclude the use of the normal 20% offers on the defendant's website. Of course, the class counsel is seeking fees based on the face value; the settlement has illegal cy pres, too. We objected on behalf of a class member.
• Pecover v. Electronic Arts, Inc., No. 4:08-cv-02820 (N.D. Cal.) involves a settlement that will pay about $1 million to the class, but the attorneys are seeking $9.2 million for themselves. I'm a class member in an unfair video-game class action settlement? Of course I'm objecting!
• On December 20, the Second Circuit issued a disappointing summary order affirming the $0 Blessing v. Sirius XM settlement where the attorneys walked away with $13 million. [Reuters] We'll be filing a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc today, and are looking for pro bono Supreme Court counsel for a cert petition if the Second Circuit doesn't correct its legal error.

In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation

The Class Action Fairness Act puts limitations on coupon settlements. In In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation, however, the district court approved a settlement that would pay $5.2 million in cash and $8.9 million in Walmart.com coupons to the class and held CAFA did not apply because the parties called the coupons "gift cards." Does the Class Action Fairness Act regulate semantics or something more? I argue the latter in a Ninth Circuit opening brief filed today.

The district court also awarded a disproportionate $8.512 million to the attorneys. Our appeal addresses that issue as well. And because I miss Lionel Hutz, the brief cites the classic case of Homer Simpson v. The Frying Dutchman Restaurant.

March updates

• If you listen to one oral argument from March 27, well, I have to say that you need to listen to Paul Clement's performance in HHS v. Florida. But if you have time for a second oral argument, and you have a hankering for Third Circuit class action action, I'd be curious about your thoughts of the argument in Dewey v. Volkswagen. See also.
  
• Following up on our earlier post, the Third Circuit denied the motion for sanctions without comment, or permitting us to file a reply brief. (Mazie Slater had no explanation for the misquote; they used the passive voice in describing its mysterious appearance in the brief, and didn't explain how citecheckers missed it.) Having been given such carte blanche, Mazie Slater then proceeded to lie to the court about the terms of the settlement and settlement notice during the oral argument. I simply don't understand why courts aren't willing to do more to police the attorneys who appear before them. If the only consequence for inventing a citation out of whole cloth is the need to file an errata deleting an invented citation (i.e., the brief that should have been filed in the first place), what incentive does the Holmesian "bad actor" have to get the law right in the first place? After all, if there's a 5% chance that the fictionalized version will swing the case, 5% times $9 million in fees is a $450,000 incentive to lie to the court. If the bad actor isn't facing a proportionate downside, you can expect the bad actor to act badly.
  
• We renewed our objection in Bluetooth. Details at Point of Law.
  
• The Apple MagSafe settlement—$600,000 for the class, $3.1 million for the attorneys—was rubber-stamped by the district court. We plan to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
  
• In the Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation settlement with Wal-Mart for a class of Netflix customers, the district court agreed with the settling parties that a coupon isn't a coupon if they call it a "gift card" instead, and that the restrictions on coupon settlements in the Class Action Fairness Act didn't apply, and rejected my objection. We believe this contradicts CAFA, as well as Seventh Circuit precedent, and plan to ask the Ninth Circuit to address this problem.

Ninth Circuit briefing in In re HP Inkjet complete

We filed our reply brief today.

• Opening brief
• Plaintiffs' response brief
• HP response brief
• Reply brief

See if you can spot the big math error in the HP brief before you read the reply brief.

mid-December update

• Wednesday, we filed our Second Circuit brief in Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. 
• Appellees are filing response briefs in Cobell v. Salazar today. We'll put them up in our Cobell appeal update post when they make it onto the web. Oral argument is scheduled for February 16. If you're going to be in the DC area at the beginning of February, and I know you personally, let me know if you're interested in attending a moot.
• The district court approved the settlement in Barber Auto Sales v. UPS. I'm unhappy with the ruling, which I think is very wrong, but the case is both too small and too narrow to be worth appealing; we already have the larger Sirius case and pending HP Inkjet case in appellate courts to raise the Class Action Fairness Act issues that would have been central to this case. Devoting resources to appealing this case would preclude us from objecting in a couple of other cases, and stretch us pretty thin with the existing appellate schedule. Can't win 'em all, even if we only bring cases that should be won.
• The district court approved the settlement and the fee request in Trombley v. National City Bank. If it's not an abuse of discretion to approve a 28% fee and $3000/hour-of-paralegal recovery when a case settles without any risk on Docket Entry No. 5, it never is, so we're thinking long and hard about whether to appeal this one; one objector has already appealed, so our appeal wouldn't have any effect on when payouts occurred.
• The appalling refusal of Missouri appellate courts to do anything about the coupon settlement ripoff in Bachman v. AG Edwards earlier this year resulted in that state receiving attention in the annual Judicial Hellholes report earlier this week.
• It's not all bad news. Yesterday was the hearing in the second Classmates.com settlement. The parties agreed to modify the settlement to remove the Bluetooth kicker, and the court indicated it would reduce the $1.05M fee request, meaning that money will go to the class. The fee reduction alone might outstrip the original $117,000 settlement, which is now worth over $2.5M. If you're keeping track, that's the fifth time in a row we've won a case and/or fee reduction against Kabateck Brown Kellner; one hopes that this discourages them from continuing to bring bad class actions just to negotiate self-serving settlements. This time, they refrained from abusive ad hominem attacks against us in their briefs; they're learning.

Yes, the Ticketmaster class action settlement is appalling

Yes, we know about the Ticketmaster class action settlement, which over a dozen class members have emailed us about. There's no question that this coupon settlement (complete with questionable cy pres) would be illegal in federal court. Unfortunately, the case is pending in California state court. This limits the precedential value of the case (it's only a jurisdictional accident that it's not in federal court; if it were brought today it would be), and I'm sufficiently discouraged by the last few ventures into state court that I'm reluctant to devote limited resources to it. Including objections and a notice of appeal we've committed to file but haven't yet, we have nineteen cases pending, including eight appeals where the briefing isn't finished.

However, many of the class members who have written us are attorneys. So a possibility is that sufficiently angry attorney class members volunteer to write the briefs (working off of briefs we've previously filed on these issues). Then someone based in California (or me) could attend the fairness hearing. Other class members could submit their objections saying they're joining that one. We're going to try to coordinate that over the course of this month; if you've written to me, and I haven't emailed you yet on this, I will this weekend.

Sirius XM settlement approved

Judge Baer approved the $0 Blessing v. Sirius XM settlement and $13 million fee award yesterday. The decision contradicts (and ignores) Bluetooth, Aqua Dots, and the Class Action Fairness Act (which applies to "coupons" and not just "coupons 'to purchase something [class members] might not otherwise purchase'"), and applied the wrong standard of law in creating an essentially irrebuttable presumption of fairness for the settlement. So we'll have an interesting appeal to the Second Circuit, which will either have to reverse or create a circuit split.

June 20 was a busy day

The growth of the Center for Class Action Fairness LLC can be shown just by the breadth of its activities on Monday, June 20:

• There were twelve objectors at the Cobell v. Salazar fairness hearing, and I was the only attorney representing an objector. Unfortunately, the district court overruled our objections, and approved the $3.4 billion settlement. There was some good news: if one takes the plaintiffs' request for $224 million in a fee and expense award seriously, rather than as a tactical maneuver to give the judge room to award high fees while appearing to cut the request, then the judge's decision to award $99 million in fees (and reject another $11 million in expense requests by the class representatives) means that there will be another $136 million available for class members when and if distribution takes place.
  
• Dan Greenberg was at the fairness hearing in the Central District of California for Stetson v. West Publishing which drew some extra blogosphere attention because it involved BarBri expenses for many many recent law-school graduates. The court, from the bench, rejected the coupon settlement, which entailed over $1.8 million in attorney-fee requests. It's the second win from the bench in a row for Dan; we're still waiting for the official opinion in the coupon settlement rejection in Sobel v. Hertz (D. Nev.).
  
• And Adam Schulman, our local counsel Chris Arfaa, and I helped file Dan's reply brief in the McDonough v. Toys "R" Us (E.D. Pa.) baby products class action settlement, where the attorneys are requesting about $14 million though the class is likely to receive less than $20 million. The fairness hearing will be July 6 in Philadelphia.

The Center for Class Action Fairness represents class members pro bono when they are treated unfairly by class action settlements. Please contact me if you get notice of a class action settlement that you are concerned might be unfair, and I will evaluate it for free.

Stetson v. West Publishing Corp. - BarBri Class Action Settlement

Because the 170,000 class members are law students and lawyers, I've been getting a lot of inquiries about this case and its coupon settlement. Stay tuned: we will be objecting, and early enough that you can read the objection and choose to write in to the court to join it if you wish.

Note that the notice not only fails to disclose precisely how much the attorneys will be asking for, but disingenuously offers a May 30 deadline for receiving objections. Of course, May 30 is Memorial Day, so the real deadline is possibly as early as May 27. More details at Point of Law.

Illegal coupon settlement in Nevada

Daniel Greenberg of the Center for Class Action Fairness LLC has filed an objection on behalf of two class members to a coupon settlement where the attorney-fee request does not even begin to comply with the basic Class Action Fairness Act requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1712. We are mystified how the plaintiffs intend to justify the settlement; perhaps they will contend that the $10 discount "certificates" issued to the class are not coupons. The attorneys and class representatives are asking for $1.46 million without even an attempt to predict the redemption rate of these certificates.

The case is Sobel v. Hertz Corp., No. 06-cv-545 (D. Nev.), and the fairness hearing will be in Reno May 17.

Reply brief in Bachman v. A.G. Edwards coupon settlement appeal

Milberg and several other law firms collected $21 million in quick-pay fees for a Missouri state-court class action settlement that provided face value of $39 million to the class, most of which was in $8.22 coupons. The Center for Class Action Fairness appealed the rubber-stamp approval, and, on Friday, filed a reply brief in the case. Oral argument is set for May 4 in St. Louis.

Court reduces fees after CCAF objection to HP settlement

In January, we discussed a Center for Class Action Fairness objection to a coupon settlement involving HP inkjet printers. That settlement turned out to be even worse than the pathetic one advertised: $5 million in coupons were offered, but the multi-million member class only bothered to file claims for $1.5 million worth of the coupons, with the rest reverting to HP. And of course, a claim for a coupon is not an actual redemption of the coupon: my $2 coupon will likely go unused, since there's nothing HP sells on its website that isn't more than two dollars more expensive than what I can get it for elsewhere.

The attorneys asked for $2.9 million in fees and expenses, justifying it with a quack economic expert report valuing some token injunctive relief as being worth tens of millions of dollars. In a March 29 opinion, Judge Fogel rejected that valuation, held that the settlement was worth only $1.5 million to the class, and reduced the award of fees and expenses to $2.1 million.

Some of the language in the opinion is very good: all too often, courts divorce the fee inquiry from the relief actually won. As Russell Jackson points out, this court said, "To allow an award of attorneys' fees to outstrip the benefit to consumers in such cases would undermine the importance of focusing the efforts of class action counsel on issues that most affect consumers."

So why did the attorneys get $2.1 million? Because of the economic fiction of "fees" and "expenses," which are calculated differently. See, "expenses" cover things like travel, experts, and copying costs. But "fees," that covers things like rent and other overhead, attorney salaries, and paralegals. Attorneys will allocate a dollar received into one bucket or the other, and for some reason, courts will scrutinize the buckets differently, though at the end of the day, the attorneys get a single check for money that they can spend any way they want: the rent and the airlines are going to get paid either way. So the court held that the $2.9 million requested, consisting of $2.3 million in fees and $0.6 million in expenses, was unreasonable with respect to the fees, and reasonable with respect to the expenses—even though the fee request also includes money that goes to expenses, just a different category of expenses. So the attorneys got all of their "expense" request, and just had the "fee" request reduced—but still ended up with more than the class.

That's just business as usual, but there were a couple of other troubling things about the decision. The Class Action Fairness Act requires coupons to be valued by their redemption rate, not by the claim rate. Many of these coupons (such as the one I am scheduled to receive) are not going to be used; one institutional party received tens of thousands of unusable coupons because the terms of the settlement require a claimant to use only one coupon per order, and it would be infeasible for the company to split up its bulk orders to tens of thousands of individual orders.

Second, the court opinion says that there were only three objections, but this is false: there were hundreds of objections, but, because of a confusing notice, 99% of the objectors (including the institution discussed earlier) sent their objections to the claims administrator, the parties never passed along those objections to the court, and the court disregarded my complaint about the procedure in its opinion. Ironic for a consumer fraud case that the plaintiffs' attorneys successfully took advantage of a misleading notice they provided.

Should CCAF appeal this decision? An attorney commenting at Jackson's site suggests that the plaintiffs' attorneys will appeal, and if they do, we'll certainly cross-appeal. At some point CCAF will ask the appellate courts to create a bright-line rule forbidding attorneys from recovering more than their clients. Is this the case to do it?