Lawyers File New Yahoo Data Breach Settlement, Boosting Its Value to $117.5M
The settlement includes a single fund from which $55 million would be available for out-of-pocket costs and $24 million in identity theft protection for class members. It also includes $30 million in attorney fees and $2.5 million in legal costs, a slight reduction from the original fee request.
April 09, 2019 at 10:26 AM
4 minute read
Attorneys have boosted a class action settlement over Yahoo Inc.'s recent data breaches to $117.5 million after a federal judge rejected preliminary approval of it earlier this year.
The settlement, filed Tuesday with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, includes a single fund from which $55 million would be available for out-of-pocket costs and $24 million in identity theft protection for class members (or $100 payments to those who already have credit monitoring). It also includes $30 million in attorney fees and $2.5 million in legal costs, a slight reduction from the original fee request.
“Following the court's denial of preliminary approval, the parties immediately set about addressing the issues the court identified, re-engineering the resolution of this case,” wrote lead plaintiffs counsel, Tampa, Florida-based John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan.
The deal is one of the largest data breach settlements in U.S. history.
In 2016, Yahoo announced that 500 million accounts had been hacked in 2014, compromising names, email addresses, phone numbers, birth dates and passwords. Months later, Yahoo disclosed another breach in 2013 that affected 1 billion accounts, a figure that Verizon increased to 3 billion last year. The settlement also involves a third breach in 2015 and 2016.
The defendants are Altaba Inc., the division of Verizon formerly known as Yahoo, and Oath Holdings Inc., which owns Yahoo's holding company.
The original $85 million settlement included a $50 million fund from which consumers could make claims for out-of-pocket costs. In addition, Yahoo had agreed to provide at least two years of credit monitoring and identity theft protection insurance to class members.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, who rejected the deal on Jan. 28, asked why the class involved only 200 million individuals with about 1 billion Yahoo accounts. She also questioned why it took 32 firms to work on issues that were “not particularly novel.” The $35 million fee request was “unreasonably high,” she wrote. The firms had included a $22 million lodestar calculation for 143 lawyers.
She also found the settlement improperly released claims relating to smaller breaches in 2012, calling Yahoo's nondisclosures and lack of transparency “egregious.”
An amended complaint filed Monday, however, expanded the class to include Yahoo users in 2012. The motion for settlement approval estimated that 194 million individuals holding 896 million accounts would be part of the class.
The $117.5 million settlement fund would reimburse businesses and individuals, with a $25,000 cap for individuals. The reimbursement is for fraud charges, and other costs, and includes compensable time spent dealing with the breach's repercussions. The fund also includes $6 million in administrative costs.
Leftover funds would not revert to the defendants but end up distributed as cy pres to the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The new deal includes an information security budget of more than $300 million over the next four years, with 200 people involved, which are “amounts that are at least four times and three times greater, respectively, than Yahoo maintained prior to this case,” the motion says.
“Enhanced and improved data security is a critical aspect of the settlement,” the motion says.
A spokesman for Verizon Media, speaking for Yahoo, said in an emailed statement: “We believe that the settlement demonstrates our strong commitment to security.”
Yahoo is represented in the matter by counsel at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Hunton Andrews Kurth.
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 AllContract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readSouthern California Law Firms Boast Industry-Leading Revenue, Demand Through Q3
Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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