12 ms·

> This is fundamentally a politically motivated suit. Let me start with saying I agree fully with this. But I don't necessarily agree with it being a broad at

by cosmie 8y ago

> This is fundamentally a politically motivated suit. Let me start with saying I agree fully with this. But I don't necessarily agree with it being a broad attack on the idea of a class action settlement. [1] and [2] give decent breakdowns of why this settlement was problematic. The charities chosen were themselves political choices - it was distributed to convenient charities to both sides. Some were charities Google were already known to give funding/donations to, and the other were law schools which had ties to the plaintiff's lawyers. If you're going to invoke the cy pres doctrine on a class action settlement, don't make the recipient selection of the charitable donations so obviously politically motivated. If you're just going to leverage cy pres doctrine to divert class action funds to favored recipients, then be ready to potentially have the cy pres doctrine re-examined and criteria tightened. [1] https://searchengineland.com/google-involved-in-supreme-court-case-that-may-change-class-action-damages-awards-297232 https://searchengineland.com/google-involved-in-supreme-cour... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-will-take-a-closer-look-at-class-actions-1525123346 https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-will-take-a-close...

ajross 8y ago
> But I don't necessarily agree with it being a broad attack on the idea of a class action settlement. That doesn't really square with the evidence though. I mean, the points you cite are in fact arguments in this case, and I agree they're interesting legal arguments. But they don't explain why the case was brought. I think it's reasonably clear that the plaintiffs here (not the ones in the original suit!) don't really care about whether or not millions of Google users get compensated a few dollars. What the plaintiffs want is a broad SCOTUS precedent putting a new requirement on class action settlements, and thus making future class action cases harder (i.e. more expensive, more risky) to pursue.
- mark212 8y ago
  very much this last comment (but to be clear, they're not "plaintiffs" they're the appellants / petitioners; at the trial court they were "objectors"). Ted Frank has been trying to radically remake class action law for years. He raises money for his non-profit expressly for this purpose.

by cosmie 8y ago

ajross 8y ago

> But I don't necessarily agree with it being a broad attack on the idea of a class action settlement. That doesn't really square with the evidence though. I mean, the points you cite are in fact arguments in this case, and I agree they're interesting legal arguments. But they don't explain why the case was brought. I think it's reasonably clear that the plaintiffs here (not the ones in the original suit!) don't really care about whether or not millions of Google users get compensated a few dollars. What the plaintiffs want is a broad SCOTUS precedent putting a new requirement on class action settlements, and thus making future class action cases harder (i.e. more expensive, more risky) to pursue.

mark212 8y ago
very much this last comment (but to be clear, they're not "plaintiffs" they're the appellants / petitioners; at the trial court they were "objectors"). Ted Frank has been trying to radically remake class action law for years. He raises money for his non-profit expressly for this purpose.