Consumer Law

I'm a Class Member!

By Jeff Sovern

by Jeff Sovern

Sometimes consumer law strikes home. I just received a notice of a proposed settlement of a consumer class action, and I might actually be a member of the class!  The defendant is Symantec, which makes the antivirus software I use.  Plaintiffs claim that when Symantec customers upgraded their subscription, Symantec didn't give them a credit for the unused portion of their old subscription, but started the new subscription right at that time, and that this failure is unlawful.  Symantec denies the allegations, but the parties have agreed to a settlement and are now seeking court approval.  So far, this sounds great. Found money, right?  So what do I get?  Either a $15 dollar voucher good for use on Symantec products, or $2.50!  Wow!  Only, I'm not likely to use the voucher, because I just renewed my Symantec subscription which means I wouldn't renew again for nearly a year, and I'm not going to remember a year from now that I've got a voucher (of course, many consumers won't be in this position, because they might renew sooner, but would a consumer renewing even three months from now, say, remember?  If not, and I bet most won't, and if customer purchases are evenly distributed throughout the year then three-quarters of the class members won't get the voucher unless Symantec's purchase software remembers for them.  And what about consumers who no longer use Symantec products? Which might be likely to include the class members, because, after all, they've just been told of allegations that Symantec behaved badly).  So that just leaves me $2.50.  But wait--to get even that, I have to read through the form (more about that below) and submit the following:

I affirm the following: (1) I purchased an upgraded Symantec Subscription Product** online at the Symantec Renewal Center1 between December 5, 2001 and April 11, 2008; (2) I did notpurchase the upgrade at the Symantec Online Store; (3) I upgraded before the existing subscription on my previous Symantec Subscription Product expired; and (4) to the best of my knowledge, I did not receive the benefit of unexpired subscription time remaining on my previously purchased Symantec Subscription Product.

I have no idea whatsoever whether I bought my upgrade via the Online Store or at the Renewal Center, or whether my existing subscription had expired.  How many consumers will remember something like that?  Perhaps that won't stop consumers from affirming the facts (after all, with the amounts at stake, is anybody going to check?), but if no one remembers and no one is going to check--for $2.50?  even assuming that they could check--then what's the point of asking for the affirmance? In fact, for $2.50, what's the point of submitting the claim form?

I'd love to know how many class members, and what percentage of the class actually receive the benefits.  I would also love to know how many class members actually read the notice.  It certainly contains enough verbiage to deter reading.  Here, for example, is how it identifies the addressees:

To: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHO, BETWEEN DECEMBER 5, 2001 AND APRIL 11, 2008, PURCHASED ONLINE A SYMANTEC SUBSCRIPTION PRODUCT WITH A STOCK KEEPING UNIT THAT DESIGNATES THE PRODUCT AS AN UPGRADE, THE INSTALLATION OF WHICH RESULTED IN THE UNINSTALLATION OF ANOTHER SYMANTEC SUBSCRIPTION PRODUCT PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THAT PRODUCT?S SUBSCRIPTION.

A stock keeping unit?  What's that?  That's right at the beginning.  Want to bet that a lot of people stopped reading before they got through it?

So, as has no doubt become apparent, I have real doubts about how many class members will actually benefit from this settlement.  Incidentally, the settlement also provides for a release of Symantec. Symantec also will add the following language to its FAQ and its renewal center landing page:

Any subscriptions for upgrade products begin on the day of product installation. If you replace the Symantec subscription product that you currently have with an upgrade product, any unused subscription time on the replaced product will not be added to the upgrade subscription, when the new upgrade product subscription replaces your current product subscription.

So future buyers won't be misled about their rights.  That's good, right? That will surely be a big comfort to future subscribers, if they read it.  A big benefit to current class members too.  By the way, I kind of wonder whether Symantec added language like that to their renewal center page the day they got served.  Oh, and did I mention the attorney's fees?  2,275,000.00  split among five firms.

Now maybe those lawyers did a great job.  I don't know anything about the underlying claim.  Maybe the suit was a long shot at best and the lawyers did an incredible job persuading the defendants to settle.  And maybe I'm wrong about the number of class members who will benefit from the suit.  I'm a believer in paying attorneys bigger fees than the class members get in damages if the attorneys benefited the class, their work justifies it,  and the damages are small.  But really, is this the kind of thing that makes consumer lawyers or our legal system look good?  Can't we do better than this?

More information about the case is available here.

Full post as published by CL&P Blog on April 19, 2009 (boomark / email).