Unfair settlements generally serve self-interested lawyers and third parties at the expense of absent class members, the group of people whose rights are traded away to settle a class action. Lawyers have an interest in their fees, defendants have an interest in cheaply disposing of a lawsuit, and the class’ interests can take a back seat in the process. CCAF seeks to solve these problems by representing such class members pro bono and presenting judges with the other side of the argument. When CCAF prevails, lawyers get less, class members get more, and the rule of law is strengthened.
The New York Times says CCAF’s Ted Frank is “the leading critic of abusive class action settlements,” while Reuters called him a “class action maverick” and “among class action lawyers’ most feared objectors.”
Featured Posts
Reason
Photos Show the Transformation of Great Britain
Not so long ago, Great Britain was deemed “the sick man of Europe.” The 1970s were plagued by inflation, labor union strikes, and a rise…
News Release
CEI Disappointed in Outcome of Supreme Court Decision in Class Action Settlement Case, Frank v. Gaos, but Hopeful for Future Resolution
In Frank v. Gaos, a class action-related case initiated by former CEI attorneys, the U.S. Supreme Court today decided to send the case back to…
News Release
CEI Congratulates Ted Frank and CCAF on the Launch of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute
Since merging with CEI in 2015, the Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF) has continued the mission Ted Frank began nearly a decade ago. CCAF has…
Search Posts
Litigation
Martin v. Blessing
The Center initially objected to this settlement because, among other problems, its value to class members did not justify the $13M attorneys’ fees request. Ultimately,…
Litigation
Marek v. Lane
The Center was retained to petition the Supreme Court for review of a settlement that gave $0 for the class, $3.2M to the attorneys, and…
Litigation
Bayer Corporation Combination Aspirin Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
As a result of the Center’s objection, the parties modified the settlement to increase direct payments to the class by over $5.8M. Our second objection…
Litigation
Baby Products Antitrust Litigation
This case involved a settlement of consolidated antitrust class actions brought by consumers against retailers Toys “R” Us, Babies “R” Us and several baby product…
Litigation
HP Inkjet Printer Litigation
The Ninth Circuit held that the Class Action Fairness Act requires that when class members obtain coupons in a settlement, the lawyers’ fees attributable to those…
Litigation
Dry Max Pampers Litigation
CCAF objected to this $0 settlement between Proctor & Gamble Company and consumers who purchased certain kinds of Pampers diapers where class counsel requested $2.73…