Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a long-awaited conclusion to Facebook's “Sponsored Stories” class action saga, a federal judge gave final approval to a $20 million settlement on August 26 but took an axe to the $7.5 million in fees requested by plaintiffs attorneys.
The settlement approved by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg provides for each Facebook user who submitted a valid claim to receive $15, with remaining funds disbursed to 14 organizations focused on consumer protection, privacy and other issues raised in the suit. Facebook Inc. is also required to improve its disclosure practices, giving users more control over when and how their names and photos will be used. The company must also create special controls for minors.
“We are pleased that the settlement has received final approval,” a Facebook spokeswoman said in a statement.'Fraley v. Facebook, 11- 1726, was filed in March 2011 on behalf of some 150 million social network users whose names and likenesses were used to promote products and services through Facebook's “Sponsored Stories” advertising feature.
Seeborg granted the plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees, costs and incentive awards, but reduced some amounts. The class had moved to recoup $7.5 million in attorney fees, which marked 37.5% of the settlement fund. Though above the typical 25% benchmark, plaintiffs lawyers argued their fees should reflect the value of injunctive relief secured for the class.
Seeborg rejected that approach, finding “nothing to suggest ' that any class member will see a single dollar more in his or her pocket as a result of any of the injunctive provisions.”
Instead, he awarded plaintiffs lawyers 25% of the settlement fund after the deduction of administration expenses, incentive awards and costs. Those payments are expected to total roughly $1.1 million, making the fee award approximately $4.7 million.
The three named plaintiffs had sought incentive awards of $12,500 apiece, for a total of $37,500. Instead, they'll receive $1,500 each.
Last December, Seeborg gave'preliminary approval'to a settlement that would have distributed $10 per claimant. The final action marks a sweeter deal for them ' in part because so few came forward.
In his order granting final approval, Seeborg wrote that he weighed an even greater payout to claimants. However, he determined that increasing the payment further would unfairly penalize class members who didn't bother submitting claims for what they believed to be negligible compensation.
The judge had previously'rejected'a $20 million proposal that divvied up the settlement for charitable donations and attorney fees but gave no monetary benefit to class members.
Robert Arns, the San Francisco plaintiffs attorney who is lead counsel for the class, did not respond to a request for comment. Cooley partner Michael Rhodes, who represented Facebook, deferred comment to the company's press team.
In a long-awaited conclusion to Facebook's “Sponsored Stories” class action saga, a federal judge gave final approval to a $20 million settlement on August 26 but took an axe to the $7.5 million in fees requested by plaintiffs attorneys.
The settlement approved by U.S. District Judge
“We are pleased that the settlement has received final approval,” a Facebook spokeswoman said in a statement.'Fraley v. Facebook, 11- 1726, was filed in March 2011 on behalf of some 150 million social network users whose names and likenesses were used to promote products and services through Facebook's “Sponsored Stories” advertising feature.
Seeborg granted the plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees, costs and incentive awards, but reduced some amounts. The class had moved to recoup $7.5 million in attorney fees, which marked 37.5% of the settlement fund. Though above the typical 25% benchmark, plaintiffs lawyers argued their fees should reflect the value of injunctive relief secured for the class.
Seeborg rejected that approach, finding “nothing to suggest ' that any class member will see a single dollar more in his or her pocket as a result of any of the injunctive provisions.”
Instead, he awarded plaintiffs lawyers 25% of the settlement fund after the deduction of administration expenses, incentive awards and costs. Those payments are expected to total roughly $1.1 million, making the fee award approximately $4.7 million.
The three named plaintiffs had sought incentive awards of $12,500 apiece, for a total of $37,500. Instead, they'll receive $1,500 each.
Last December, Seeborg gave'preliminary approval'to a settlement that would have distributed $10 per claimant. The final action marks a sweeter deal for them ' in part because so few came forward.
In his order granting final approval, Seeborg wrote that he weighed an even greater payout to claimants. However, he determined that increasing the payment further would unfairly penalize class members who didn't bother submitting claims for what they believed to be negligible compensation.
The judge had previously'rejected'a $20 million proposal that divvied up the settlement for charitable donations and attorney fees but gave no monetary benefit to class members.
Robert Arns, the San Francisco plaintiffs attorney who is lead counsel for the class, did not respond to a request for comment.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.