Rita Robinson, who writes the Boomer Consumer blog for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, posted an entry titled Attorneys general oppose DirectBuy’s class-action lawsuit settlement discussing an amicus brief filed by Attorneys General from 34 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia objecting to a proposed settlement in a consumer fraud class action brought against online wholesale club DirectBuy, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
A copy of the brief is available for download here courtesy of the Washington Attorney General’s website. The essential theory of the case was that the defendant “represented that paid DirectBuy memberships entitle customers to purchase goods from manufacturers and suppliers at actual cost when, in fact, Defendants receive kick-backs from the suppliers and manufacturers out of the purchase price paid by DirectBuy members — resulting in members paying more than the actual cost for such goods.” Amicus Brief at 4. The 34-page brief raises a variety of objections to the settlement, but the primary beef is that only benefit to claimants was membership extensions or discounts on future memberships, which they argue amounts to a “coupon” settlement.
The case illustrates the practical impact of a key but often overlooked component of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, the requirement that “appropriate” government officials be given notice of a proposed class action settlement in federal court. This is a topic that was the subject of a series of CAB posts in 2008, which you can access at the links below:
- Facing the Threat of Government Action Following a Class Action Settlement, July 18, 2008
- CAFA Official Notice Requirements in Action, June 25, 2008
- Get The “Official” Perspective on CAFA Notice to Appropriate Government Officials, June 5, 2008
- Practice Tip: Think CAFA Requirements Only Apply In Removed Cases? Think Again, April 9, 2008
- Practice Tip of the Week: Make Sure to Send Notice to “Appropriate” Government Officials, March 28, 2008
As noted in June 25, 2008 entry, although CAFA requires that notice be given to state and federal officials, it is rare for those officials to take any action to object to the settlement after they receive it. One exception, as exemplified by the DirectBuy case, is a coupon settlement. (The other thing that can get officials’ attention is where the release in a proposed settlement purports to bind state officials, such as a clause that purports to release parens patriae claims by the state.)
Although CAFA requires notice to state officials, it does not give them any power to prevent the settlement. In fact, state officials do not even have the express power to formally object to a settlement, which is why when they do act, it is usually in the form of an amicus (friend of the court) brief. Ultimately, approval or disapproval of the settlement is still up to the trial court. However, it should go without saying that if you’re a party or attorney seeking approval of a class action settlement, it’s much better not to have government officials filing an amicus brief critical of your settlement.
[…] 31 entry discusses the problem of so-called “professional” objectors. And this April 12 entry addresses objections raised by government officials. There is at least one other type of […]
[…] benefit lawyers. As a prime example, he points to the controversial proposed settlement in a class action involving DirectBuy to which 36 attorneys general and a consumer rights organization have […]
[…] Conn. May 16, 2011) (Here is a link to the slip opinion). The controversial settlement had been opposed by 39 attorneys general, a nonprofit consumer rights organization, and had been singled out by commentators for criticism […]
[…] Dozens of state attorneys general expressed concern over the DirectBuy coupon settlement, which received nationwide adverse publicity, and the District of Connecticut got it right by rejecting the settlement. Posted by Ted Frank at 8:30 AM Tags:class action settlements , coupons […]
[…] When 36 AGs Object to Your Class Action Settlement, That’s Not a Good Sign, April 12, 2011 […]