Class Action Critic Ted Frank Objects to $1.4B Equifax Data Breach Settlement
Frank, director of the Center for Class Action Fairness at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, wrote in a Tuesday filing that the deal unfairly compensates some customers over others and awards excessive fees to plaintiffs' attorneys.
November 19, 2019 at 03:04 PM
6 minute read
Class action objector Ted Frank has opposed the $1.4 billion settlement over the Equifax data breach, claiming the deal unfairly compensates some customers over others and awards excessive fees to plaintiffs' attorneys.
In a Tuesday objection filed in court, Frank, director of the Center for Class Action Fairness at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, a nonprofit in Washington D.C., said that the deal fails to differentiate the potential 147 million class members from each other based on statutory damages available under various state data breach laws.
"You have citizens of 50 states, in which many state legislators were explicitly concerned about data breaches and created these regimes to protect customers, and all these individual regimes are being ignored," he said.
He also wrote that plaintiffs firms should get closer to $16 million in fees, not the $77.5 million they are requesting.
The objection is one of several lodged in court ahead of a Dec. 19 final approval hearing before Chief Judge Thomas Thrash of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The deadline to object was Tuesday.
The settlement, reached on July 22, resolved claims by consumers whose personal and financial information was compromised from the 2017 cyberattack, plus civil complaints brought by the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and 50 state attorneys general.
Each state, however, has different data breach laws, Frank said, some of which impose potentially thousands of dollars in statutory damages while others do not.
Frank's argument mimics that of an objector who appealed approval of a class action settlement with Hyundai Motor America Inc. and Kia Motors America Inc., winning a ruling last year from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that found the district judge failed to analyze the consumer laws of several states. A Ninth Circuit en banc panel reversed that decision earlier this year.
But, unlike In re: Hyundai, Frank said there were specific differences in the Equifax case that created "fundamental intraclass conflicts." In New York, for example, data breach victims are entitled to $50 in statutory damages, while a Washington D.C. resident, like himself, could receive $1,500, he wrote in his motion.
Addressing another aspect of the deal, Frank chastised "outrageous and impermissible" requirements imposed on objectors to the Equifax settlement, such as making themselves available for depositions and disclosing how much their attorneys plan to ask for in attorney fees.
"Not only do the hurdles constitute a reason to reject the settlement in this case, they provide an added reason to discredit any argument that a low number of objectors signals the class members' approval of the settlement," he wrote.
Under the settlement, Equifax agreed to spend $1 billion on cybersecurity measures over the next five years. Equifax also agreed to pay another $125 million for out-of-pocket losses by consumers, and as much as $2 billion more in credit monitoring, if needed.
The deal provided class members free credit monitoring or, as an alternative, $125 in cash.
After millions of its customers submitted claims for the cash, Equifax sent out a new notice via email that required class members to verify they already had credit monitoring as of Oct. 15 in order to get the $125, according to Frank's motion. Many class members likely ignored that email, which looked like spam, he wrote.
"The class notice never informed these class members that perfecting their claim would require providing additional information," Frank wrote. "With no notice of this new requirement, the settling parties deny millions of class members the settlement share they validly claimed."
A handful of class members, mostly in letters directly addressed to the court, said they now get 21 cents instead of the $125.
Meanwhile, plaintiffs attorneys have submitted an "excessive fee request," Frank's motion says.
Last month, lawyers from 13 firms appointed to the multidistrict litigation filed a motion for fees they said were reasonable given that the amount represented less than 20.4% of the $380.5 million cash fund and only 5.6% of the settlement when including the other benefits to the class. It would primarily compensate all 13 firms, but another 46 law firms worked on the case.
They estimated that their total billing multiplied by their hourly rate—referred to as the lodesta—would total more than $27.7 million when including future work on the settlement.
Frank called the $380.5 million figure a "completely fictional cash fund," and the lodestar inflated given the lawyers "didn't do any actual litigating in this case." As a result, he said, the fees should be 10% of $162 million, the real value of the settlement.
The fee request is the highest of any data breach settlement, with fee awards approved in similar cases against Anthem and Yahoo totaling $31 million and $30 million, respectively.
In those data breach cases, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California, questioned the amount of billing and the number of law firms involved. Those same problems exist in the Equifax settlement, Frank said.
"Obviously, there's a lot of back scratching going on here," Frank said. "It's the same thing that happened in Anthem."
Neither co-lead plaintiffs attorney Ken Canfield of Atlanta's Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, nor Equifax lead counsel David Balser, of King & Spalding in Atlanta, responded to requests for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Possible Harm'?: Winston & Strawn Will Appeal Unfavorable Ruling in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readGeorgia RICO Case Against Trump Likely to Avoid Trial Amid Election Win, Nationally-Known Law Professor Says
State Appeals Court 'Reluctantly' Remands $1.7B Punitive Damages, Sanctions Against Ford for Fatal Rollover
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 2Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 3In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 4Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 5The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250