Embedded above is my windfall from the settlement of the StarKist class-action suit. It was supposed to be much higher:
"The settlement provides that StarKist will pay $8 million in cash and $4 million in vouchers redeemable for StarKist tuna products. You may submit a claim for either:
But... "The significantly lower payout is due to the fact that more than 2.5 million people signed up for payment, which is 12 times more than Starkist anticipated."a) a cash payment of $25, or
b) $50 in product vouchers redeemable for StarKist tuna products."
The attorneys, however, did well, despite a 4% reduction in their fees:
Class counsel was awarded $3.6 million, but the amount was reduced by $154,987 to cover objectors’ counsel fees and costs.This week I also noticed some numbers related to the Harvey Weinstein lawsuit:
Elizabeth Fegan, the lead attorney representing the women who are part of the original class action lawsuit and all future claimants who choose to join it, could receive up to 25% of the payout if the settlement goes ahead, legal observers said. They pointed out that sum could end up being 10 times or more the payment to individual victims, especially if more join the case and dilute the amount of the awards.Perhaps some attorney reading this blog could come out in support of fairness (not the legality, which is presumed) of such litigation.
The only thing more obnoxious than the two-dollar payout is the settlement that sticks you with vouchers for more products by the company that screwed you over. Worse yet, vouchers offering a DISCOUNT on said products, as I received from one of the ticket broker lawsuits.
ReplyDeleteFairness in litigation? This is America, where you have to buy fairness!
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this sort of litigation is the collective punishment of a company, it's not to compensate the injured. So while the payouts are perfuntory they demostrate a resolution to the plaintiffs. The compensation to the lawyers might seem unbalanced but realize that most of these are lost or settled for peanuts, so some fixed payout even if disproportionate in the end is needed to encourage lawyers to take up tort cases. A good number of our current safety and honest practices (e.g. No false advertising) does not come from criminal law but the from threat of tort actions if due diligence is not done by the company. SO while someone may profit from scalding their lap with coffee, the reason for that fine is to punish the company for malpractice and the enrichment of lawyers and a person is just a consequence of that need. It's important to separate out cases that seem frivolous and unnecessary burdens on companies and those that create a public good. I'm not sure where the hot coffee case fits in that spectrum, but remember a jury did hear all the evidence and you did not.
ReplyDeleteThe hot coffee case was not frivolous at all. McDonalds had their coffee at unnaturally high temperatures that was seriously harming people all over. All to fit an advertising trope about being hot to the last drop. You wouldn't assume a dropped coffee would lead to 3rd degree burns and skin grafts onto your genitals. They had been covering up other cases of serious harm. And the original payout (which was modified to an unknown number) amounted to less than a day of coffee sales for the corporation.
DeleteThank you for saying that. More people should know the real story.
Delete"McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years."
"McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases."
"Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly."
"The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s later reached a confidential settlement."
I got that check too!
ReplyDeleteI forget how much, but got maybe $20 for settlement for Consumer Reports. Currently have one for tires on my care that could be hundreds. But in both cases, my cost/loss was significantly higher.
ReplyDelete