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.
Chelsea Allison writes for The Recorder, the San Francisco-based ALM affiliate of Internet Law & Strategy. She can be reached at'[email protected].
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.
Chelsea Allison writes for The Recorder, the San Francisco-based ALM affiliate of Internet Law & Strategy. She can be reached at'[email protected].
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
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
GenAI's ability to produce highly sophisticated and convincing content at a fraction of the previous cost has raised fears that it could amplify misinformation. The dissemination of fake audio, images and text could reshape how voters perceive candidates and parties. Businesses, too, face challenges in managing their reputations and navigating this new terrain of manipulated content.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.