ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> CL&P Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Consumer Law

: CL&P Blog

Carfax Class-Action Settlement Rejected

By Deepak Gupta

ADVERTISEMENTS

by Deepak Gupta

Way back in May 2007, we posted here about objections by Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety to a nationwide-class action settlement involving Carfax. The underlying suit alleged that Carfax deceived customers by concealing the limits of the information contained in its popular vehicle history reports. Under the proposed settlement, Carfax would get a complete release of all claims, the plaintiffs' lawyers would get fees, and consumers nationwide would get the option to receive coupons for more free Carfax reports. The case was a poster-child for a bad coupon settlement. Nevertheless, a state trial court in Ohio approved the settlement over our objections.

In September 2009, I flew out to Ohio to argue the case before the state appeals court. We had three straightforward arguments for why the settlement was defective: (1) Carfax did not even attempt notice to the vast majority of the class, (2) the trial court approved the settlement without considering information concerning the actual value of the coupons to the class (as revealed by the number of claims made) and (3) the trial court inexplicably denied a request that Carfax turn over the relevant claims information. Although the state court does not get many class actions, let alone nationwide class-action settlement objections, the judges seemed surprisingly well prepared and had pointed questions for the settling parties' lawyers.

I'm pleased to report that the Ohio Court of Appeals handed us a victory over the holidays, ruling in our favor on all three grounds. Beyond the importance of this ruling for consumers in the vehicle history context, it's significant for several reasons. Ohio has a remarkably sparse class-action-fairness jurisprudence, and we're hopeful that this case will set some minimum standards, including an individual-notice requrement as a constitutional floor for notice. In addition, the insistence on the discovery of coupon-redemption information is also quite significant in its own right. When that kind information is revealed -- for example, when people find out that far less than 1% of the class is likely to claim the coupons -- it becomes really hard to defend a bad coupon settlement. 

Good coverage of our Carfax victory appeared this week in the New York Times, the Cleveland Plain Dealer and Consumer Affairs.

In related vehicle-history-information news, the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System -- a long-overdue public alternative to Carfax that was launched in response to our successful lawsuit against the Justice Department -- continues to proceed toward full implementation. Here's an update on some of the latest.

Full post as published by CL&P Blog on January 05, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0033 secs (from cache 10/31/26 03:54:45)