This past month, the Supreme Court avoided providing guidance on “cy pres” class-action settlements—instead, it reaffirmed the importance of its Spokeo decision (Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016)) in class action jurisprudence and deferred the complicated cy pres issues for another day. See Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019).
The Court had granted review in Frank to review whether so-called “cy pres” class-action settlements—settlements that distribute monetary relief to public interest organizations instead of the plaintiffs—are proper under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e). The district court approved an $8.5 million settlement to the plaintiffs for claims against Google for alleged violations of the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”). However, with more than 129 million settlement class members, the possible distribution to individual plaintiffs was less than a dime. Because the per-plaintiff settlement was so small, the district court considered distribution impractical and ordered that the settlement funds be paid to law schools and organizations with internet privacy initiatives—even though the law school beneficiaries were the alma maters of Class Counsel. The district court also agreed to award Class Counsel more than 20% of settlement in fees and costs even though the settlement class members received nothing. The Ninth Circuit, while raising concerns about the appearance of the attorneys’ fee award and the distribution of settlement funds, nevertheless affirmed the district court’s approval of the settlement.
Rather than determine the propriety of the settlement, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit to consider if the plaintiffs have standing in accordance with the Court’s decision in Spokeo. In Spokeo, the Court held that plaintiffs cannot establish standing in federal court by merely alleging a federal statutory violation. Instead, plaintiffs must additionally show that they have suffered some actual, real-world harm. In Frank, the Court found that the lower courts in the case had not determined whether the plaintiffs had “alleged SCA violations that are sufficiently concrete and particularized to support standing” under the Spokeo standard. Therefore, the Court remanded to the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case.
In dissent from the per curium opinion, Justice Thomas asserted that he would rule on the merits and reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Justice Thomas argued that although the plaintiffs had standing for the SCA violations, the cy pres settlement did not conform to Rule 23(e) because it was “not a form of relief to the absent class members and should not be treated as such.” Further, Justice Thomas found that such settlements render class plaintiffs’ representation inadequate: “the fact that class counsel . . . were willing to settle the class claims without obtaining any relief for the class—while securing significant benefits for themselves—strongly suggests that the interests of the class were not adequately represented.”
The Frank opinion exemplifies the importance of the Spokeo standing analysis in most statutory violations/alphabet class action litigation and reflects the Court’s ongoing skepticism of using class actions generally to resolve consumer disputes. The intriguing questions regarding the propriety of cy pres settlements remain unresolved but may return to the Court in the near future.
 The Frank appeal was one of the cases discussed during Joe’s “10 Cases Every In House Counsel Should Know” Presentation at the December 12, 2018 KMK Legal Update Seminar.
 Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 1043 (2019).
 Id. at 1044.
 Gaos v. Holyoak (In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litig.), 869 F.3d 737, 742 (9th Cir. 2017) (“The remaining settlement fund was approximately $5.3 million, but there were an estimated 129 million class members, so each class member was entitled to a paltry 4 cents in recovery—a de minimis amount if ever there was one.”).
 Id. at 743-44.
 See id. at 747-48.
 Frank, 139 S. Ct. at 1046.
 Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016).
 Frank, 139 S. Ct. at 1046.
 Id. at 1046-47 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
 Id. at 1047.
 Id. (citing Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U. S. 591, 619-620 (1997)).
- Class Action Litigation
- Cybersecurity and Privacy Law
- Data Breach
- Securities Law
- Supreme Court
- Sixth Circuit
- Intellectual Property
- Social Media
- Trademark Litigation
- Initial Coin Offering
- Bet-the-Company Litigation
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Employment Law
- Workplace Accommodations
- Employer Policies
- Labor & Employment Law
- Labor Law
- General Data Protection Regulation
- Securities Litigation
- Stock Drop
- Drug Enforcement Agency
- Medical Marijuana
- Ohio Foreclosure Reform
- Craft Brewing
- Cybersecurity Regulation
- Copyright Law
- Environmental Law
- Fair Housing Act
- Health Care Act
- Healthcare Reform
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Religion Discrimination
- Seventh Circuit
- Electronically Stored Information
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Cyber Insurance
- Business Process Improvement
- Employment Litigation
- Receivership Statute
- Employer Handbook
- Employer Rules
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- E-Discovery Project Plan
- Predictive Coding
- TAR ( Technology Assisted Review)
- Quality Representation
- Land Use & Zoning
- Statute of Limitations
- Construction Litigation
- Federal Rule
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez and the Impact on Class Action Litigation
- Questioning the Questionnaires: New PPP-Related Litigation Raises Issues for Borrowers
- "You Don't Have to Go Home But You Can't Stay Here": Updates to Ohio and Kentucky’s COVID-19 Orders Impacting Bars & Restaurants
- Kentucky Restaurants Begin Opening with Limited Capacity Amid COVID-19 Epidemic
- Ohio Restaurants and Bars Begin Soft Openings for Diners Amid COVID-19 Epidemic
- Supreme Court Sidesteps “Cy Pres” Challenge
- Golfers, New and Old - Be Careful!
- "Aloha Poke": Social Media and Consumer Perception are Part of the Trademark Enforcement Equation
- GDPR: Less Than 100 Day and Counting to "G-Day" - Here's What You Need to Know
- Rapid SEC Action Against AriseBank Reveals New Playbook For Allegedly Fraudulent ICOs