Following up on a promise from a Justice Department official, government lawyers asked a judge last week to reject a class action settlement that proposes nearly $2 million in attorney fees for plaintiffs lawyers.

The DOJ's rare statement of interest about the fairness of the settlement is the first filed since Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand suggested in a speech last week that the department would ramp up its review of fairness in such settlements.

The lawsuit, brought in 2016 in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey, alleges the operator of the website Wines 'Til Sold Out falsely advertised wines at a discounted price, but the wines were never actually sold at an original price. The claims included violations of New Jersey state law, and fraud and unjust enrichment. The proposed settlement offers class members credits toward future wine ranging from $0.20 to $2.25 per bottle of wine purchased, the total value of which is estimated at $10.8 million.

In their filing, lawyers in DOJ's Consumer Protection Branch told District Judge Renee Bumb for of the District of New Jersey that the agreement is “not appropriate” because it provides “extremely limited value to consumers” yet promises a “windfall payment” to the plaintiffs lawyers.

“Under the terms of the agreement, consumers gain nothing beyond a chance to buy more wine from the Defendants at a miniscule discount and then only if they successfully navigate the unnecessarily complex process the proposed settlement erects,” DOJ's filing said. “Class counsel, meanwhile, have requested a $1.7 million cash payment—a significant amount that far outweighs the meager offering to class members.”

DOJ lawyers said in the document that settlements paid in the form of coupons or vouchers warrant extra scrutiny from courts. The vouchers, the document said, are actually valued “far below” $10.8 million and have strict requirements that seem “designed to stymie consumers and prevent them from redeeming their coupons.”

The filing also said the harm to consumers appeared minimal. Though class members did not purchase wine at a price discounted from the original, they did receive the products they ordered at a price they agreed to pay.

“A suit attacking such insignificant harms does not warrant [$1.7 million] in compensation to class counsel,” the document said.

The plaintiffs are represented by James Cecchi of the firm Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello. The website and its owner, Ashburn Corp., are represented by James McClammer, Nicole Moshang and Suzanne Schiller of Manko Gold Katcher & Fox. Lawyers for both parties did not yet respond to a request for comment.

The last time DOJ filed a statement of interest related to fairness in a class action settlement was more than a decade ago, Brand said in her speech last week.

She said that, under requirements in the 2005 Class Action Fairness Act, DOJ receives roughly 700 notices of proposed class action settlements every year. However, the department rarely participated in cases due to slow processes in the mailroom that prevented attorneys from reviewing the notices efficiently.

“We've begun to fix that process, and are already in a better position to review settlements,” Brand said. “If a settlement isn't fair or reasonable under CAFA, DOJ may file a statement of interest saying so.”

A fairness hearing on the settlement is scheduled for March 19, which DOJ lawyers plan to attend.