4 ms·

Yeah, pretty terrible outcome. Lawyers get a huge chunk of money for relatively little effort, the actual plaintiffs get like a couple of thousand each, and th

Yeah, pretty terrible outcome. Lawyers get a huge chunk of money for relatively little effort, the actual plaintiffs get like a couple of thousand each, and the companies pay out an amount that is likely far less than the amount they saved by the illegal collusion and is also not sufficiently punitive to impact their future decisions to do similar things.

hga 13y ago
The lawyers, who are fronting the money to pursue this, have to balance risk and reward. Anything can happen when it's put before a jury, including a deadlock from one recalcitrant juror followed by a retrial. Getting to that point would be insanely expensive, likely years of discovery battles, deposition taking and all that (and Jobs, the apparent ringleader, is of course beyond mortal questioning and judgement). Then, as noted, an appellate judge (although not necessarily after all the above played out, it's going to be expensive for the companies and they'd pursue it ASAP) could declare this case isn't a proper class action. And there are ways the trial judge could screw up on matters of law and get slapped down by the appellate court ... and that's the infamous 9th Circuit.... Then we get to damages: sure, you can ask for 3 billion, and that it be trebled to 9, but you aren't necessarily going to get that much, and big awards are often substantially decreased upon appeal.
- talmand 13y ago
  But who's risk and reward is being considered when the clients end up with very little? If the result was such a pittance for the people affected by the actions, why bother in the first place? If the result isn't going to be punitive to the companies then what's stopping them from doing it again in the future?
  - hga 13y ago
    It's somewhat punitive. Even if they're not technically admitting guilt, paying that much money is taken as guilt by pretty much everyone. Don't know if Apple has taken reputational damage, but the damage to "Don't be evil" Google is severe for a lot of people where it can make a difference. As for what's going to stop them, a recidivist is treated worse in the courts. They're now under the terms of a DOJ consent decree; violating those will in theory be bad for them (it gets political, of course). The path of another class action civil suit like this would likely be much worse. Etc.
    - talmand 13y ago
      Well, whether repeating the practice will result in increased damages remains to be seen. I, for one, shall not hold my breath. But future increased damages does nothing for victims in the present.
lmg643 13y ago
do the individual plaintiffs have any say, in aggregate? surely there has to be a better way to pursue a class action than this.
- bradleyjg 13y ago
  Sort of -- the class was certified under Rule 23(b)(3) which is not mandatory, however it is opt-out rather than opt-in. The opt-out procedure is not particularly straightforward either. Class settlements have fallen apart do to opt-outs, but as far as I know, never in a case with such a large class. There will be a hearing where a judge will have to approve the settlement, theoretically that is how the fundamental conflict of interest between class counsel and their nominal clients is assuaged, but in practice Federal District Court judges rarely reject settlements.

hga 13y ago

The lawyers, who are fronting the money to pursue this, have to balance risk and reward. Anything can happen when it's put before a jury, including a deadlock from one recalcitrant juror followed by a retrial. Getting to that point would be insanely expensive, likely years of discovery battles, deposition taking and all that (and Jobs, the apparent ringleader, is of course beyond mortal questioning and judgement). Then, as noted, an appellate judge (although not necessarily after all the above played out, it's going to be expensive for the companies and they'd pursue it ASAP) could declare this case isn't a proper class action. And there are ways the trial judge could screw up on matters of law and get slapped down by the appellate court ... and that's the infamous 9th Circuit.... Then we get to damages: sure, you can ask for 3 billion, and that it be trebled to 9, but you aren't necessarily going to get that much, and big awards are often substantially decreased upon appeal.

talmand 13y ago
But who's risk and reward is being considered when the clients end up with very little? If the result was such a pittance for the people affected by the actions, why bother in the first place? If the result isn't going to be punitive to the companies then what's stopping them from doing it again in the future?
- hga 13y ago
  It's somewhat punitive. Even if they're not technically admitting guilt, paying that much money is taken as guilt by pretty much everyone. Don't know if Apple has taken reputational damage, but the damage to "Don't be evil" Google is severe for a lot of people where it can make a difference. As for what's going to stop them, a recidivist is treated worse in the courts. They're now under the terms of a DOJ consent decree; violating those will in theory be bad for them (it gets political, of course). The path of another class action civil suit like this would likely be much worse. Etc.
  - talmand 13y ago
    Well, whether repeating the practice will result in increased damages remains to be seen. I, for one, shall not hold my breath. But future increased damages does nothing for victims in the present.

lmg643 13y ago

do the individual plaintiffs have any say, in aggregate? surely there has to be a better way to pursue a class action than this.

bradleyjg 13y ago
Sort of -- the class was certified under Rule 23(b)(3) which is not mandatory, however it is opt-out rather than opt-in. The opt-out procedure is not particularly straightforward either. Class settlements have fallen apart do to opt-outs, but as far as I know, never in a case with such a large class. There will be a hearing where a judge will have to approve the settlement, theoretically that is how the fundamental conflict of interest between class counsel and their nominal clients is assuaged, but in practice Federal District Court judges rarely reject settlements.