Will the Supreme Court Like This Facebook Settlement?
Federal rules require that class-action settlements be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” A petition before the Supreme Court in
Marek v. Lane
argues that a settlement that pays lawyers and helps a defendant, but leaves class members out in the cold, meets none of those requirements.
By Jamie Schuman|October 09, 2013
Thank you for sharing!
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
This story was first published by The National Law Journal, an American Lawyer affiliate.
Federal rules require that class-action settlements be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” A petition before the U.S. Supreme Court in Marek v. Lane argues that a settlement that pays lawyers and helps a defendant, but leaves class members out in the cold, meets none of those requirements.
The deal in question came after Facebook users sued the company for publicizing their online purchases without permission. The social-networking site agreed it was in the wrong, but the settlement that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit approved did not compensate the more than three million absent class members, the petition argues.
This premium content is locked for Litigation Daily subscribers only.
Subscribe now to enjoy unlimited access to Litigation Daily content,
5 free articles* across the ALM Network every 30 days,
Exclusive access to other free ALM publications
And exclusive discounts on ALM events and publications.
*May exclude premium content Already have an account? Sign In Now
Interested in customizing your subscription with Law.com All Access?
Contact our Sales Professionals at 1-855-808-4530 or send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org to learn more.
As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters.
Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss.
Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.