Duane Morris Takeaway: In the first half of 2025, across all major types of class actions, courts issued rulings on more than 211 motions to grant or deny class certification, and plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 145 rulings, with an overall success rate of 69%. In contrast, in 2024, the plaintiffs’ class action bar succeeded in certifying class actions 63% of the time. However, plaintiffs have not been as successful so far this year as compared to 2023, when courts granted 72% of class certification motions, or 2022 when courts granted 74% of class certification motions.
Across all major types of class actions, courts issued rulings last year on 432 motions to grant or to deny class certification. Of these, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 272 rulings, for an overall success rate of 63%. In 2023, by comparison, courts issued rulings on 451 motions to grant or to deny class certification, and plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 324 rulings, an overall success rate of nearly 72%. In 2022, courts issued rulings on 335 motions to grant or to deny class certification, and plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 247 rulings, an overall success rate of nearly 74%.
2022 – 74% 2023 – 72% 2024 – 63% 2025 – 69%
In 2025, the number of motions that courts considered varied significantly by subject matter area, and the number of rulings varied across substantive areas.
The following list summarizes the results in each of ten key areas of class action litigation:
WARN – 100% granted / 0% denied (2 of 2 granted / 0 of 2 denied) Antitrust – 92% granted / 8% denied (11 of 12 granted / 1 of 12 denied) ERISA – 92% granted / 8% denied (11 of 12 granted / 1 of 12 denied) FLSA / Wage & Hour (Conditional Certification) – 82% granted / 18% denied (58 of 71 granted / 13 of 71 denied) Securities Fraud – 75% granted / 25% denied (12 of 16 granted / 4 of 16 denied) TCPA – 67% granted / 33% denied (4 of 6 granted / 2 of 6 denied) Consumer Fraud – 58% granted / 42% denied (15 of 26 granted / 11 of 26 denied) Civil Rights – 56% granted / 44% denied (19 of 34 granted / 15 of 34 denied) Discrimination – 55% granted / 45% denied (6 of 11 granted / 5 of 11 denied) Privacy – 43% granted / 57% denied (3 of 7 granted / 4 of 7 denied) FCRA / FDCPA – 40% granted / 60% denied (2 of 5 granted / 3 of 5 denied) FLSA / Wage & Hour (Decertification) – 33% granted / 67% denied (1 of 3 granted / 2 of 3 denied) Products Liability / Mass Torts – 33% granted / 67% denied (1 of 3 granted / 2 of 3 denied) RICO – 25% granted / 75% denied (1 of 4 granted / 3 of 4 denied) Data Breach – 0% granted / 100% denied (0 of 2 granted / 2 of 2 denied)
The plaintiffs’ class action bar obtained the highest rates of success in WARN, antitrust, ERISA, and wage & hour class actions. There have only been two WARN certification rulings in 2025, which were both granted by the court for a 100% success rate. In cases alleging antitrust violations, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining orders certifying classes in 11 of 12 rulings, for a success rate of 92%. In cases alleging ERISA violations, plaintiffs managed to obtain class certification rulings in 11 of 12 rulings issued during the first half of 2025, a success rate of 92%. And in wage & hour litigation, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining orders certifying classes and/or collective actions in 58 of 71 rulings issued during 2025, a success rate of 82%.
Courts Issued More Rulings In FLSA Collective Actions and Wage & Hour Class Actions Than In Any Other Areas Of Law
For the first half of calendar year 2025, courts issued more certification rulings in FLSA collective actions and wage & hour class actions than in other types of cases. Plaintiffs historically have been able to obtain conditional certification of FLSA collective actions at a high rate, which surely has contributed to the number of filings in this area.
From January 1 to July 1, 2025, courts considered more motions for certification in FLSA matters than in any other substantive area. Overall, courts issued 74 rulings. Of these, 71 addressed first-stage motions for conditional certification of collective actions under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and 3 addressed second-stage motions for decertification of collective actions. Of the 71 rulings that courts issued on motions for conditional certification, 58 rulings favored plaintiffs, for a success rate of 82%.
These numbers are higher than the numbers observed in 2024, during which courts issued 171 rulings. Of these, 156 addressed first-stage motions for conditional certification of collective actions under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and 15 addressed second-stage motions for decertification of collective actions. Of the 156 rulings that courts issued on motions for conditional certification, 124 rulings favored plaintiffs, for a success rate of 79.5%.
At the decertification stage, courts generally have conducted a closer examination of the evidence and, as a result, defendants historically have enjoyed an equal if not higher rate of success on these second-stage motions as compared to plaintiffs.
The results so far in 2025 have not supported that typical success. There have only been 3 rulings thus far that courts issued on motions for decertification of collective actions, and only 1 ruling favored defendants, for a lower success rate of 33%.
An analysis of the rulings demonstrates that a disproportionate number emanated from traditionally pro-plaintiff jurisdictions, including the judicial districts within the Second Circuit (21 decisions) and Third Circuit (12 decisions), which include New York and Pennsylvania, respectively.
Takeaways From Certification Statistics Midway Through 2025
Notable thus far at the halfway point of the year, there have been a very small number of rulings emanating from the Fifth and Sixth Circuits (1 and 0 decisions, respectfully), which could account for the high overall conditional certification rate in the wage & hour space, given that these two circuits have imposed new, stricter standards for conditional certification. Plaintiffs likely are shifting their case filings away from these two circuits toward jurisdictions with more lenient, more plaintiff-friendly standards for conditional certification.
The numbers no doubt flow from the different standards and approaches that courts in different federal circuits take in evaluating motions for conditional certification and decertification and, in turn, the likelihood of plaintiffs’ success on such motions. If more courts join the Fifth and Sixth Circuits in abandoning the traditional two-step certification process under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and thereby increase the time and expense of gaining a conditional certification order, it may lead to a reshuffling of the deck in terms of where plaintiffs file their cases and the types of claims they pursue.
We will continue to track class certification trends in 2025 and will report on final numbers in the Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2026, which will be published in the first week of January. Stay tuned!
Duane Morris Takeaways: Corporate defendants saw unprecedented settlement numbers across all areas of class action litigation in 2022, 2023, and 2024, and halfway through 2025, settlement numbers remain robust. The cumulative value of the top ten settlements across all substantive areas of class action litigation hit near record highs in 2024, following the highest levels ever in 2022, and the second highest total in 2023. When the numbers for 2022, 2023, and 2024 are combined, the total signals that corporate defendants have entered a new era of heightened risks and higher stakes in the valuation of class actions.
On an aggregate basis, across all areas of litigation, class actions and government enforcement lawsuits garnered more than $42 billion in 2024, $51.4 billion in settlements in 2023, and a record-setting $66 billion in 2022. When combined, the three-year settlement total eclipses any other three-year period in the history of American jurisprudence.
As a prelude to the Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2026, this blog post reports on our analysis of class action settlements through the first half of 2025. The data shows that for the period of January 1 to June 30, 2025, the current year is on pace with the numbers of the previous three years. As of the end of the first half of 2025, the aggregate settlement total across all areas of class action litigation and government enforcement lawsuits is $21.77 billion (in accounting for the top 5 settlements in the various substantive areas of law). By comparision, in 2024 at the half-way mark, the aggregate settlement total was $22.5 billion.
It is anticipated that these numbers will increase across the board by the end of the year and when measured by the top 10 settlements in each category.
More Billion Dollar Class Action Settlements
At the mid-way point of 2025, there are three settlements over the billion-dollar mark. The 10 individual billion-dollar settlements in 2024 surpassed the number in 2023, and only fell short of the number of billion-dollar settlements in 2022. In 2023, parties resolved nine class actions for $1 billion or more. In 2022, parties resolved 15 class actions for $1 billion or more in settlement dollars. Together with the three thus far in 2025, corporations have seen 37 settlements of one billion dollars or more in three and a half years. This string of settlements marks the most extensive set of billion-dollar class action settlements in the history of the American court system.
Class action settlements totaled $66 billion in 2022, $51.4 billion in 2023, $42 billion in 2024, and $21.77 billion in 2025 so far.
The Scorecard On Leading Class Actions Settlements Halfway Through 2025
The plaintiffs’ class action bar has scored rich settlements thus far in 2025 in virtually every area of class action litigation.
The top 5 class action settlement totals in each practice area. [Click to enlarge]
The following list shows the totals of the top 5 settlements at the mid-year point in 2025 in key areas of class action litigation:
$13.09 Billion – Products liability/mass tort class actions $4.36 Billion – Antitrust class actions $2.03 Billion – Securities fraud class actions $712 Million – Consumer fraud class actions $300.8 Million – Data breach class actions $293.75 Million – Privacy class actions $279.7 Million – Civil rights class actions $222 Million – Discrimination class actions $178 Million – ERISA class actions $86.9 Million – Wage & hour class and collective actions $77.05 Million – Government enforcement actions $54.5 Million – Fair Credit Reporting Act class actions $54.4 Million – Labor class actions $34.77 Million – TCPA class actions
The high dollar settlements of the past three years suggested that the plaintiffs’ bar would continue to be equally, if not more aggressive, with their case filings and settlement positions. From the 2025 data, it certainly looks to be the case as we end the first half of the year.
The data points in each category are set out in the following charts.
Top Class & Collective Action Litigation Settlements In 2025
Top Antitrust Class Action Settlements In 2025
The top 10 antitrust class action settlements totaled $8.412 billion in 2024, $11.74 billion in 2023, and $3.72 billion in 2022.
$2.78 billion – In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation, Case No. 20-CV-3919 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action requiring the NCAA and its Power Five conference members to pay approximately $2.8 billion in damages, characterized as “back pay,” to compensate student-athletes for the denial of name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities under prior NCAA eligibility rules).
$630 million – Loop LLC, et al. v. CDK Global LLC, Case No. 24-CV-571 (W.D. Wis. June 10, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims by automotive technology vendors who alleged the company colluded with Reynolds & Reynolds Co. to inflate prices for data integration services).
$398 million – Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms Inc., Case No. 19-CV-2521 (D. Md. June 5, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims by workers alleging the poultry firms violated the Sherman Act by conspiring to drive down their hourly wages and salaries at poultry processing operations).
$375 million – Le, et al. v. Zuffa LLC, Case No. 15-CV-1045 and Johnson, et al. v. Zuffa LLC, Case No. 21-CV-1189 (D. Nev. Feb. 6, 2025) (final settlement approval granted to resolve claims in a more than a decade-long class action in which fighters accused UFC of suppressing their wages).
$275 million – In Re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 16-MD-2724 (E.D. Penn. Feb. 19, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims brought by consumers, insurers and other end payer plaintiffs alleging that drugmaker Sandoz conspired with other companies to fix the price of certain generic drugs).
Top Civil Rights Class Action Settlements In 2024
The top 10 civil rights class action settlements totaled $313.8 million in 2024, $643.15 million in 2023, and $1.31 billion in 2022.
$140 million – Nnebe, et al. v. Daus, Case No. 06 Civ. 4991 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from over 19,000 taxi drivers challenging the city’s practice of suspending the license of any driver who was arrested for a felony or misdemeanor).
$92.5 million – Onadia, et al. v. City Of New York, Case No. 300940/2010 (N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025) (final settlement approval hearing scheduled in a class action to resolve claims by individuals who were unlawfully detained by the NYC Department of Correction).
$28 million – Doe, et al. v. Johnson City, Case No. 23-CV-71 (E.D. Tenn. May 5, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims alleging that Johnson City businessman Sean Williams drugged and raped more than 50 women in his downtown condo in incidents he captured on video).
$17 million – Allen, et al. v. Global Tel*Link Corporation d/b/a ViaPath Technologies, Case No. 24-CV-827 (E.D. Va. Feb. 21, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company charged incarcerated individuals and their families excessive fees for communications services).
$2.2 million – Vigil, et al. v. 2801 Fifteenth Street NW LLC, Case No. 2022 CA 001459 (D.C. Super. Ct. Mar. 27, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the apartment complex charged illegal fees and failed to provide habitable living conditions for tenants).
Top Consumer Fraud Class Action Settlements In 2025
The top 10 consumer fraud class action settlements totaled $2.44 billion in 2024, $3.29 billion in 2023, and $8.596 billion in 2022.
$425 million – In Re Capital One 360 Savings Account Interest Rate Litigation, Case No. 24-MD-3111 (E.D. Va. June 16, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company deceptively advertised its 360 Savings accounts as high-interest savings products).
$145 million – In Re Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 20-MD-2966 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims by direct and indirect Xyrem purchasers, alleging that the company’s actions leading up to, and entering into, patent litigation settlement agreements with generic drug manufacturers who had filed abbreviated new drug applications violated U.S. state and federal antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws).
$100 million – Cabrera, et al. v. Google LLC, Case No. 11-CV-1263 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from advertisers alleging the defendant overcharged for advertisements through its AdWords service).
$25 million – Anderson, et al. v. Boyne USA, Inc., Case No. 21-CV-95 (D. Mont. June 25, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from condo property owners alleging that the exclusive rental management requirement of condominium-hotel units violated state and federal law).
$20 million – Smith, et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 21-CV-9527 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging a battery swelling defect with early-model Apple Watches in some cases caused watch screens to detach or shatter).
Top Data Breach Class Action Settlements In 2025
The top 10 data breach class action settlements totaled $593.2 million in 2024, $515.75 million in 2023, and $719.21 million in 2022.
$177 million – In Re AT&T Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 24-CV-757 (N.D. Tex. June 20, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant released customer information on the dark web).
$45 million – In Re MGM Resorts International Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 20-CV-376 (D. Nev. June 18, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that MGM failed to protect 37 million customers’ personal information from multiple data breaches in and 2023).
$32.8 million – Baker, et al. v. ParkMobile, LLC, Case No. 21-CV-2182 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 13, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company harmed consumers by failing to secure their data and therefore exposed them to identity theft, fraud, and the need to spend time securing related accounts).
$25 million – In Re LoanDepot Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 24-CV-136 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company negligently failed to protect the personal information of nearly 17 million people).
$21 million – In Re Arthur J. Gallagher Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 22-CV-137 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims the company failed to prevent a 2020 data breach that compromised sensitive employee and client information).
Top Discrimination Class Action Settlements In 2025
The top 10 discrimination class action settlements totaled $356.8 million in 2024, $762.2 million in 2023, and $597 million in 2022
$70 million – Ferris, et al. v. Wynn Resorts Ltd., Case No. 18-CV-479 (D. Nev. Feb. 3, 2025) (final settlement approval granted to resolve claims in a class action alleging sexual misconduct allegations against founder Steve Wynn).
$50 million – Curley, et al. v. Google LLC, Case No. 22-CV-1735 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company discriminated against Black employees).
$43 million – Rasmussen, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co., Case No. 19-STCV-10974 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 13, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant systematically paid female employees in California less than men for substantially similar jobs; regularly passed women over for promotion; and loaded them with extra work without providing additional pay).
$31 million – In Re Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., Case No. 21-BK-20687 (D. Conn. Feb. 14, 2025) (settlement entered following Norwich Diocese filing for bankruptcy in July 2021 following lawsuits by survivors of clergy abuse at its Academy at Mount Saint John boarding school).
$28 million – Cantu, et al. v. Google LLC, Case No. 21-CV-392049 (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 11, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that workers identifying as Latino, Native American, and other ethnicities were paid less than white, Asian, and Asian American employees for substantially similar work).
Top EEOC / Government Enforcement Class Action Settlements In 2025
The top 10 EEOC / government enforcement class action settlements totaled $335.9 million in 2024, $263.58 million in 2023, and $404.5 million in 2022
$20.25 million – U.S. Department Of Labor v. UMR, Inc., Case No. 23-CV-513 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 19, 2025) (consent order entered in an enforcement action that challenged adverse benefit determinations regarding hospital emergency services claims and urinary drug screening claims).
$20 million – Federal Trade Commission v. Cognosphere LLC, Case No. 25-CV-447 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2025) (consent order entered in an enforcement action to resolve claims against a video game maker by the FTC alleged that the company misled children and other users about the actual costs of purchases and illegally collected children’s personal information).
$16.8 million – In The Matter Of The Investigation Of Letitia James, Attorney General Of The State Of New York Of DoorDash Inc., No. 25-007 (N.Y. Feb. 24, 2025) (assurance order effective following an investigation by the Attorney General for New York that found the company cheated about 63,000 food delivery workers out of their full tips in order to subsidize their pay).
$15 million – U.S. Department Of Labor v. Americare Healthcare Services, LLC, Case No. 21-CV-5076 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 9, 2025) (consent order entered in an enforcement action to resolve claims alleging that the third-party home care agency failed to pay employees overtime compensation).
$5 million – In The Matter Of The National Women’s Soccer League, No. 25-002 (N.Y. Feb. 1, 2025) (assurance order effective following an investigation by the attorneys general for New York, Illinois, and the District of Columbia found that the NWSL was “permeated by a culture of inappropriate and abusive behavior, including sexual harassment and harassment and discrimination based upon gender, race, and sexual orientation”).
Top ERISA Class Action Settlements In 2025
The top 10 ERISA class action settlements totaled $413.3 million in 2024, $580.5 million in 2023, and $399.6 million in 2022.
$69 million – Snyder, et al. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., Case No. 21-CV-1049 (D. Minn. June 12, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant engaged in imprudence, disloyalty, prohibited transactions and failure to monitor in violation of the ERISA).
$60 million – In Re AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation, Case No. 22-MD-3035 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 24, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that the church plan was mismanaged leading to participants losing significant money from the plan in violation of the ERISA).
$20.5 million – Baker, et al. v. Save Mart Supermarkets, Case No. 22-CV-4645 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action alleging that the defendant failed to honor its promise to provide them with lifetime retiree medical benefits).
$14.5 million – Burnett, et al. v. Prudent Fiduciary Services, LLC, Case No. 22-CV-270 (D. Del. Jan. 14, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a pair of class actions to resolve claims alleging that the resolving claims pilots were forced to overpay for their stake in the company through its employee stock ownership plan).
$14 million – Coleman, et al. v. Brozen, Case No. 20-CV-1358 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action brought by participants in All My Sons Moving & Storage’s employee stock ownership plan that when the plan was terminated they received losses).
Top FCRA, FDPCA, And FACTA Class Action Settlements In 2025
The top 10 FCRA, FDPCA, and FACTA class action settlements totaled $42.43 million in 2024, $100.15 million in 2023, and $210.11 million in 2022.
$23 million – Norman, Sr., et al. v. TransUnion LLC, Case No. 18-CV-5225 (E.D. Penn. Feb. 24, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant did not conduct a reasonable investigation of disputes of hard inquiries in credit files, or in the alternative, did not remove the disputed hard inquiries from credit files in violation of the FCRA).
$15 million – In The Matter Of Equifax Inc. And Equifax Information Services LLC, File No. 2025-CFPB-0002 (CFPB Jan. 17, 2025) (consent order entered to resolve claims alleging that the company violated the FCRA by failing to thoroughly investigate consumer disputes, putting previously deleted errors back on credit reports, failing to block information that resulted from identity theft, and sharing inaccurate credit scores and data about consumers to lenders).
$12.8 million – In The Matter Of American Honda Finance Corp., File No. 2025-CFPB-0003 (CFPB Jan. 17, 2025) (consent order entered to resolve claims alleging that the company violated the FCRA by furnishing false and harmful information that ended up on borrowers’ credit reports, continuing doing so after determining that several types of information were inaccurate, failing to investigate disputes about information it provided to credit reporting companies, and failing to send the results of investigations to those companies and consumers, when required).
$2.2 million – Magallon, et al. v. Robert Half International, Inc., Case No. 13-CV-1478 (D. Ore. May 7, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant failed to notify applicants when it saw negative “red” or “yellow” flags in consumer reports provided by third-party credit reporting agencies in violation of the FCRA).
$1.3 million – Wickham, et al. v. Schenker Inc., Case No. 23-CV-946 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2025) (settlement agreement reached in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant failed to provide proper disclosure under the FCRA that it was conducting background checks on workers during hiring).
Top FLSA / Wage & Hour Class And Collective Settlements In 2025
The top 10 FLSA / wage & hour class and collective action settlements totaled $614.55 million in 2024, $742.5 million in 2023, and $574.55 million in 2022.
$21 million – Wilder, et al. v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 22-CV-681 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company missed paychecks and made inaccurate deductions to employee wages after it switched payroll systems).
$19.9 million – Morgan, et al. v. Rohr Inc., Case No. 20-CV-574 (S.D. Cal. May 1, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class and collective action to resolve claims alleging that the company failed to pay proper overtime, minimum wage, and for meal and rest breaks).
$16 million –Taylor et al. v. Seattle Children’s Hospital, Case No. 22-2-15300-8 (Wash. Super. Ct. Apr. 21, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims from hospital workers alleging they were denied required meal breaks in violation of Washington wage and hour laws).
$15.5 million – Abrishamcar, et al. v. Oracle America Inc., Case No. CIV 535490 (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims from sales employees who alleged that the technology company violated the state’s wage laws for commissioned sales workers).
$14.5 million – Hunter, et al. v. Legacy Health, Case No. 18-CV-2219 (D. Or. Jan. 23, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that nurses were denied overtime compensation).
Top Labor Class Action Settlements In 2025
The top 10 labor class action settlements totaled $237.0 million in 2024 and $129.67 million in 2023.
$55 million – Saunders, et al. v. State Of Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency, Case No. 22-000007-MM (Mich. Ct. Claims May 13, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims between the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency and individuals who alleged their benefits were improperly clawed back without notice during the COVID-19 pandemic).
$34 million – Borozny, et al. v. RTX Corp., Pratt & Whitney Division, Case No. 21-CV-1657 (D. Conn. May 14, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company engaged in an agreement among contractors not to hire one another’s aerospace engineers).
$6 million – Carmen, et al. v. Health Carousel LLC, Case No. 20-CV-313 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from about 5,600 workers accusing the defendant of imposing strict employment contracts, not paying overtime compensation, and mandating a gossip ban).
$4.95 million – Ruiz, et al. v. Bass Pro Group LLC, Case No. 24-CV-3122 (W.D. Mo. May 29, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the retailer unlawfully charged employees who use tobacco an extra $2,000 per year for health insurance without properly telling them how to avoid the charge).
$4.75 million – Clarkson, et al. v. v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Case No. 19-CV-5 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 15, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that the company failed to provide paid leave for time spent performing military service).
Top Privacy Class Action Settlements In 2025
The top 10 privacy class action settlements totaled $2.01 billion in 2024, $1.32 billion in 2023, and $896.7 million in 2022.
$100 million – Cabrera, et al. v. Google LLC, Case No. 11-CV-1263 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant overcharged them for advertisements).
$95 million – Lopez, et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 19-CV-4577 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company made unauthorized recordings of Apple device users via its digital assistant Siri).
$51.75 million – In Re Clearview AI Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 21-CV-135 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a multidistrict litigation challenging the company’s practice of automatically collecting biometric facial data online in violation of the BIPA).
$27.5 million – Brooks, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp., Case No. 21-CV-1418 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company collected and sold publicly available information about consumers without their knowledge or consent in violation of California privacy laws).
$19.5 million – Aguilar Auto Repair, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Case No. 23-CV-6265 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendants recorded phone calls to California businesses without informing the recipients that the calls were being recorded in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)).
Top Products Liability And Mass Tort Class Action Settlements In 2025
The top 10 products liability / mass tort class action settlements totaled $23.40 billion in 2024, $25.83 billion in 2023, and $50.32 billion in 2022.
$7.4 billion – In Re Purdue Pharma LP, Case No. 19-BK-23649 (N.Y. Bankr. Ct. Jan. 22, 2025) (settlement agreement in principle reached with the Sackler family and their company Purdue Pharma to resolve claims between 15 states alleging that Purdue, under the Sacklers’ leadership, invented, manufactured, and aggressively marketed opioid products for decades, fueling waves of addiction and overdose deaths across the country).
$4 billion – Doe 1, et al. v. County Of Los Angeles, Case No. 21-STCV-20949 (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 29, 2025) (final settlement approval granted to resolve nearly 7,000 claims of sexual abuse at juvenile detention facilities and foster homes).
$750 million – Doe 16, et al. v. Columbia University, Case No. 20 Civ. 1791 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2025) (settlement reached to resolve claims from hundreds of patients who say they were sexually abused by a former Columbia University obstetrician-gynecologist).
$651 million – San Miguel Hospital Corp., et al. v. Publix Supermarket, Case No. 23-CV-903 (D.N.M. Mar. 4, 2025) (final settlement approval granted to resolve claims between various Acute Care Hospitals against certain opioid manufacturers and distributors)
$285 million – New Jersey Department Of Environmental Protection, et al. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours And Co., Case No. 19-CV-14766 (D.N.J. May 12, 2025) (settlement reached in an action to resolve environmental claims brought by New Jersey officials over purported PFAS contamination at the Chamber Works manufacturing facility in Salem County as well as future statewide claims).
Top Securities Fraud Class Action Settlements In 2025
The top 10 securities fraud class action settlements totaled $2.55 billion in 2024, $5.4 billion in 2023, and $3.25 billion in 2022.
$919 million – Tornetta, et al. v. Musk, Case No. 2018-0408 (Del. Chanc. Ct. Jan. 8, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve shareholder claims that board members overpaid themselves from 2017 to 2020, a period when Tesla’s market capitalization rose dramatically).
$433.5 million – In Re Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 20 Civ. 9568 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from investors regarding alleged misstatements about the company’s exclusivity practices and its planned initial public offering of a fintech affiliate).
$362.5 million – Ap-Fonden, et al. v. General Electric, Case No. 17 Civ. 8457 (S.D.N.Y Apr. 24, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from investors alleging that General Electric Co. operated a cash shortfall in its power unit).
$167.5 million – In Re EQT Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 19-CV-754 (W.D. Penn. June 26, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims from investors alleging the company overstated the benefits of its $6.7 billion merger with Rice Energy).
$146 million – In Re Alta Mesa Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 19-CV-957 (S.D. Tex. May 6, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve stemming from the $3.8 billion oil and gas company’s financial collapse in which investors alleged Alta Mesa secretly used unconventional drilling methods to inflate financial estimates before and after its merger with the SPAC).
Top TCPA Class Action Settlements In 2025
The top 10 TCPA class action settlements totaled $84.73 million in 2024, $103.45 million in 2023, and $134.13 million in 2022.
$20 million – Bumpus, et al. v. Realogy Holdings Corp., Case No. 19-CV-3309 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company made harassing phone calls from real estate agents in violation of federal telemarketing restrictions).
$6.5 million – Williams, et al. v. PillPack LLC, Case No. 19-CV-5282 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 18, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging Amazon.com affiliate PillPack LLC was responsible for unsolicited telemarketing calls that violated a federal consumer law restricting robocalls and texts).
$4.1 million – Truong, et al. v. Truist Bank, Case No. 23-CV-79 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 30, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant placed robocalls to cellphone numbers regarding unrelated accounts in violation of the TCPA).
$3.49 million – Johnson, et al. v. United HealthCare Services Inc., Case No. 23-CV-522 (M.D. Fla. July 10, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging the company violated the TCPA by placing calls to consumers about its Optum HouseCalls program).
$2.5 million – Samson, et al. v. United HealthCare Services, Inc., Case No. 19-CV-175 (W.D. Wash. June 20, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company made telemarketing calls to non-members in violation of the TCPA).
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christian J. Palacios, and George J. Schaller
Duane Morris Takeaways: On June 05, 2025, in EEOC et al., v. Sis-Bro, Inc., Case No. 3:24-CV-00968 (S.D. Ill. June 5, 2025), Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted a transgender worker’s petition to intervene in an EEOC discrimination case against her former employer, after the Commission moved to permanently dismiss the lawsuit to comply with a January 2025 Executive Order issued by President Trump. The Court opined that while it “recognize[d] that it may not dictate what cases the EEOC pursues” given that this was “the exclusive purview of the Executive Branch,” the worker also deserved a fair opportunity to litigate her claims. Id. at 3. This decision is noteworthy for its unique procedural posture. During the first few months of the Trump Administration, the EEOC has realigned its enforcement priorities consistent with a flurry of executive orders, but, as this decision illustrates, the Commission’s pending enforcement actions may not be so easily dismissed to the extent a private litigant’s rights are implicated by the dismissal.
Case Background
In March 2024, the EEOC brought an employment discrimination case on behalf of charging party Rafael Figueroa a/k/a Natasha Figueroa, alleging her employer, Sis-Bro Inc., a pig farm, discriminated against her by creating a hostile work environment and constructively discharged her based on her sex and transgender status in violation of Title VII. Id. at 1. After surviving a motion to dismiss, the Court allowed Figueroa to intervene and assert state law tort and discrimination claims, all of which were either voluntarily dismissed, or dismissed by the Court without prejudice, shortly thereafter. While discovery was ongoing, Sis-Bro filed a partial motion for summary judgment on the issue of back pay, front pay, and reinstatement, asserting Figueroa was not entitled to such relief given she was not legally eligible to work in the U.S. Id. at 2.
While the partial motion for summary judgement was pending, the executive administration changed, and on January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” After the Executive Order was issued, the EEOC moved to dismiss the action with prejudice, on the basis that continuing to litigate the matter would violate the Trump administration’s new Executive Order. Id.
As the EEOC’s motion to dismiss was pending, Figueroa sought to intervene a second time, filing yet another intervenor complaint asserting violations of Title VII (similar claims to that of the Commission), in addition to §1981 claims based on race, color, ethnicity, and national origin. Id. at 7. Figueroa did not request back pay, front pay, or reinstatement in her second intervenor complaint, but instead sought non-pecuniary and punitive damages, as well as attorneys’ fees. Id. at 3. In response, Sis-Bro moved to dismiss Figueroa’s motion to intervene, amongst other related motions, to dispose of the action entirely.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court began its ruling by observing, in dicta, that Figueroa had an interest in her claims that Sis-Bro violated the law, and while her claims may fail for other reasons, “the EEOC’s change of heart will not be one of those reasons.” Id. at 4. The Court then granted the EEOC’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, to ensure Figueroa’s rights were not impaired. Id. at 4-5.
The Court next addressed Sis-Bro’s arguments and rejected the contention that Figueroa’s motion to intervene was untimely, given Sis-Bro was unable to demonstrate her second intervenor action would have any prejudicial effect. Id. at 6. Although the Court did not allow Figueroa to re-plead her §1981 claims (because they were dismissed in the previous intervenor action), Figueroa was allowed to plead a new Title VII claim, given it was like the one that the EEOC abandoned, despite surviving a motion to dismiss. Id. at 7-8. The Court reasoned that although Figueroa did not assert these claims in her original intervenor complaint, “she placed her confidence in the good faith of the EEOC to pursue her rights along with its other statutory claims” and she sought to timely intervene once it became clear that the EEOC “changed its mind.” Id. at 9. Accordingly, the Court found Sis-Bro should be ready to litigate the matter.
Implications For Employers
As the above case illustrates, despite the fact that there has been a “changing of the guard” and the EEOC under President Trump has drastically different enforcement priorities than the Biden Administration, the Commission’s pending enforcement actions will not be so easily dismissed by courts, to the extent pending enforcement actions conflict with newly promulgated executive orders, provided that the allegedly aggrieved private litigant is ready and able to pursue the action without the assistance of the Commission.
Given that the EEOC under President Trump has indicated it will be withdrawing from many areas championed during the Biden Administration (e.g., disparate impact cases and abortion-related Pregnant Workers Fairness Act accommodation actions), private enforcement actions may increase within the coming months to fill in the enforcement vacuum left open by the Commission.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Shannon Noelle, and Anna Sheridan
Duane Morris Takeaways: In an opinion issued on May 29, 2025, Judge Christy Wiegand of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied class certification of two proposed classes under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”) (one in the alternative in the event of failure of the first) finding that the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) was not met where putative class members’ standing would depend on individualized inquiries “highly specific” to each member or was based solely on the fact that the member was a consumer that received a debt collection letter (whether it was read or not). The ruling is a defense blueprint for defending FDCPA cases.
Case Background
Named Plaintiff Jeffrey Lezark brought a putative class action under the FDCPA against I.C. System, Inc. (“ICS”), a debt collector, that allegedly sent Lezark and putative class members debt collection letters (“540 Letters”) to collect on a medical debt. The 540 Letter stated in relevant part that “[i]f you fail to contact us to discuss payment of this account, our client has authorized us to pursue additional remedies to recover the balance due, including referring the account to any attorney.” (ECF 91 ¶ 17). Lezark alleged that, in sending the 540 Letter, ICS violated the FDCPA by implying that legal action was possible to collect the debt when it was not. The Court authorized distribution of a Claim Form Questionnaire to putative class members to enable Lezark to collect information regarding their standing. The Questionnaire asked respondents for their individual experience upon reading the 540 Letter. Putative class members were instructed not to fill out the questionnaire if they did not read the 540 Letter. The questionnaire asked if putative class members: (1) felt anxious, overwhelmed, or stressed because they believed they could be subject to legal action or have debt referred to an attorney; (2) contacted an attorney or some other person because they believed they could be subject to legal action or debt could be referred to an attorney; (3) contacted ICS because they believed that they could be subject to legal action or that their debt could be referred to an attorney; (4) made a payment on their account because they believed they could be subject to legal action or their debt could be referred to an attorney; or (5) experienced some other event or engaged in some other conduct after reading the 540 Letter.
Lezark proposed one class definition consisting of “all individuals in the state of Pennsylvania who within the applicable statute of limitations, received a letter from Defendant in which Defendant claimed it was authorized to refer a medical debt to an attorney, incurred said debt from a medical provider that entered into a contract with Defendant in which the provider elected [NLAR] and/or litigation referral and incurred such debt for personal, family, and/or household purposes.” (ECF 130, at 4). There were over 15,000 putative class members of this first proposed class. Lezark also sought certification of an alternative class definition if the Court determined the first class definition could not be certified consisting of “[a]ll individuals who: signed, dated, and returned the Claim Form Questionnaire; checked the first, second, third, fourth, and/or fifth box on the Claim Form Questionnaire; and did not indicate that they failed to receive or read the 540 Letter.” Id. There were over 700 putative class members of this alternative proposed class.
ICS focused its opposition on challenging both proposed class definitions adherence to Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement. ICS specifically cited to and relied on TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal courts must “affirmatively determine that each putative class member has Article III standing before awarding that class member damages,” arguing that both proposed class definitions would require individualized factual inquiries into the injuries sustained by each putative class member. See ECF No. 142 (citing ICS’ opposition brief, ECF No. 136 at 14). As to the first class definition, Lezark argued that there was standing under Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) as each class member suffered an injury “in precisely the form [that the FDCPA] was intended to guard against.” Havens, 455 U.S. at 364.As it regards the alternative proposed class definition, Lezark argued that Huber v. Simon’s Agency, Inc., 84 F.4th 132, 150 (3d Cir. 2023), confers standing as, in that case, the Third Circuit held that the named plaintiff that received a debt collection letter had standing as the plaintiff identified “an allegedly deceptive communication and specific harmful action and inaction she took as a result of the communication.” Huber, 84 F.4th at 150. The District Court rejected both proposed class definitions and Plaintiff’s argument that case law precedent supported certification in this context.
As to the Havens standing argument for the first proposed class definition, the Court found that the Havens decisions was a distinguishable and narrow holding applicable to the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and not a proposed FDCPA class definition. The Court explained that “the plaintiff in Havens was not just given false information but suffered a concrete injury in the form of racial discrimination prohibited by the FHA.” See ECF No. 142, at 13 (citing Havens, 373-74). The Court found that Lezark’s argument — that any consumer that is the object of a misrepresentation made unlawful under the FDCPA has de facto suffered an injury in the precise form prohibited by the FDCPA — was in direct tension with the TransUnion decision. The Supreme Court in TransUnion rejected the proposition that “a plaintiff automatically satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right.” 594 U.S. at 426. The Court, therefore, declined to extend the logic in Havens to “the 15,000-plus Proposed Class members” that “simply . . . receive the 540 Letter” with no “evidence that they read it, let alone suffered any downstream harm as a result.” See ECF No. 142 at 14.
As to the alternative proposed class definition that Plaintiff argued had viability under Huber, the Court pointed out that Huber only found standing as to the named plaintiff and had been remanded to the district court to make a predominance determination. The Court highlighted that Huber guided the district court on remand to evaluate whether each putative class member “undertook the kind of determinant action or inaction required for standing” and could show the same with a “plausible straight forward method” suitable for class adjudication. Huber, 84 F.4th at 157-58. Applying this directive, the District Court found that Lezark himself had demonstrated standing, having shown evidence of emotional distress and the decision to file for bankruptcy based on the 540 Letter, but the putative class members did not. Plaintiff had to show that putative class members could “likely” demonstrate standing through summary judgment and trial but the Court found that given that standing was “premised on suffering emotional distress and/or taking particular actions in response to the 540 Letter” this “necessarily” would require “individualized and highly” specific inquiries as to each member requiring deposition testimony, cross and direct examination, and medical records. See ECF No. 142 at 10-11.
Implications For Employers and Debt Collectors
This decision reinforces that plaintiffs’ burden at the certification stage of demonstrating concrete, particularized injury is not a mere formality. To the contrary, plaintiffs must come forward with evidence showing that putative class members can likely demonstrate standing through summary judgment and trial using a method that is common amongst all class members and unlikely to produce individualized mini trials on the issue of damages. The Lezark decision also further underscores that this burden is particularly high in cases asserting standing on the basis of emotional distress or intangible injuries.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., George J. Schaller, and Ryan T. Garippo
Duane Morris Takeaways: On June 10, 2025,inClay v. Union Pac. R.R. Co, No. 24-CV-4194, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108672 (N.D. Ill. June 10, 2025),Judge Georgia N. Alexakis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois certified for interlocutory appeal her decision denying Union Pacific’s motion for partial summary judgment after concluding the 2024 amendment to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (the “BIPA”) was not retroactive. In 10 days from entry of Judge Alexakis’ Order, Union Pacific may request the Seventh Circuit’s review of the certified question of whether the 2024 amendment to the BIPA applies retroactively. This would be a key issue of significant importance to all companies facing BIPA class actions.
Case Background
Plaintiff Reginald Clay is a truck driver that visited Union Pacific’s facilities. He alleges Union Pacific required him to register his fingerprint information and scan his fingerprints upon entering and exiting those facilities. Id. at *2-3. Clay also alleges Union Pacific did not “disclose what was done with his [fingerprint] information or how it would be stored.” Id. at *3. On April 16, 2024, Clay sued Union Pacific under the BIPA.
In August 2024, the Illinois legislature amended the BIPA to “clarify that when an entity subject to the [BIPA] ‘in more than one instance, collects, captures, purchases, receives through trade, or otherwise obtains the same biometric identifier or biometric information from the same person using the same method of collection,’ in violation of the [BIPA], the entity ‘has committed a single violation … for which the aggrieved person is entitled to, at most, one recovery.’” Id. (quoting 740 ILCS 14/20(b), (c), as amended by SB 2979, Public Act 103-0769.)
On November 4, 2024, Union Pacific moved for partial summary judgment and argued “under the 2024 BIPA amendment Clay was now entitled to recover for at most a single BIPA violation rather than the ‘per-scan’” violation under Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 2023 IL 128004, ¶ 24. Id. at *3-4. On April 10, 2025, the Court concluded that “the BIPA amendment was substantive rather than procedural” and therefore the BIPA amendment “was not retroactive under Illinois law, and thus did not apply to Clay’s claim.” Id. at *4.
Union Pacific requested certification of the Court’s order for interlocutory appeal. Clay opposed the request.
The Court’s Order
On June 10, 2025, the Court certified Union Pacific’s request for an interlocutory appeal of the order denying Union Pacific’s partial motion for summary judgment. Id. at *7.
The Court determined Union Pacific satisfied the four statutory criteria under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b)that: “there must be a question of law, it must be controlling, it must be contestable, and its resolution must promise to speed up the litigation.” Id. at *1-2. In addition, the Court found Union Pacific satisfied the Seventh Circuit’s fifth “non-statutory requirement: [that] the petition must be filed in the district court within a reasonable time after the order sought to be appealed.” Id. at *2.
The Court reasoned whether the 2024 amendment to the BIPA is retroactive is “undoubtedly ‘a question of the meaning of a statutory or constitutional provision,” the Amended BIPA “presents ‘an abstract issue of law . . . suitable for determination by an appellate court without a trial record,” and that the question of BIPA retroactivity “is quite likely to affect the further course of litigation.” Id. at *4. As Union Pacific argued, and as the District Court agreed, if the “Seventh Circuit were to conclude that Clay was entitled to only one recovery… [that] certainty about the retroactivity of the 2024 amendment would ‘materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” Id. at *5.
The Court reasoned Union Pacific’s motion was timely because the Court “did not consider 28 days to be unreasonable in preparing a motion to certify for interlocutory appeal a novel question of state law, especially when Clay points to no prejudice he suffers as a result.” Id. at *6.
The Court also opined that while “the Court shares Clay’s view that its April 10 order was ‘correctly reasoned,’[], its confidence does not mean that BIPA retroactivity is not ‘contestable’ within the meaning of § 1292.” Id. In addition, the Court relied on the overwhelming decisions of judges within the Northern District of Illinois and Illinois state court finding the “BIPA amendment does not apply retroactively to pending cases, [], so no current dispute exists among the courts.” Id. at *6-7. But that the consensus of these decisions “does not mean there is ‘no substantial ground for difference of opinion’ about retroactivity.” Id. at *7.
The Court concluded that though its “confidence in its earlier decision” in Schwartz v. Supply, Inc., 23-CV-14319, (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2024) (finding 2024 BIPA amendment not retroactive to pending cases) is not changed that it acknowledges “the novelty and complexity of the legal issue” of retroactivity. Accordingly, the Court found Union Pacific meet all four statutory requirements and the Seventh Circuits’ timeliness requirement and certified Union Pacific’s interlocutory appeal.
Implications For Companies
The ruling in Clay sparks newfound hope on the hotly contested issue of retroactivity of the 2024 amendment to the BIPA. Judge Alexakis’ well-reasoned decision allows Union Pacific 10 days from the Court’s order to request the Seventh Circuit’s interlocutory review of the certified question.
Should the Seventh Circuit grant Union Pacific’s pending request, then the BIPA’s “per-scan” damages for pre-amendment BIPA litigation will receive further consideration. However, even if the Seventh Circuit grants the request, there is always a possibility the Seventh Circuit certifies the question to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Until then, the deluge of decisions referenced in Clay denying retroactivity remain in effect. Companies met with BIPA litigation must monitor Clay as it progresses through interlocutory review.
Duane Morris Takeaways: OnJune 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings d/b/a Labcorp v. Davis, No. 24-304 (U.S. June 5, 2025), that dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, an extremely rare move colloquially known as a “DIG.” Even more interesting, from the vantage point of issues that are the subject of this blog – namely, defense of class action litigation – Justice Kavanaugh wrote in dissent, stating that he would have decided the case and ruled that federal courts may not certify damages classes under Rule 23 that include both injured and uninjured class members. He reasoned that allowing such classes would not satisfy the Rule 23(b)(3) requirement that common issues predominate over individual issues. This unique decision, while it does not carry precedential weight, is instructive because the dissenting opinion provides a new roadmap for defendants facing class claims involving uninjured class members to challenge class certification, potentially keeping the door open for future review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Background
The U.S. Supreme Court’s majority per curiam opinion dismissing the writ as improvidently granted is, as is typical, a perfunctory statement that says: “The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.” Slip op. at 1. The dissenting opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh provides the background of the case, at least as it informs the issues he addresses in his dissent. His dissent starts by explaining that the majority decided the case was moot, but that he found that issue to be “insubstantial.” Id. at 1. He stated that he would have decided the case.
He provided the following background information — a federal district court in California certified a Rule 23 class of blind and visually impaired individuals who sued Labcorp, a company providing diagnostic medical testing services to consumers. The plaintiffs who brought the class action alleged they were “denied full and equal enjoyment of” goods, services, and accommodations required under the Americans with Disabilities Act by “LabCorp’s [sic] failure to make its e-check-in kiosks accessible to legally blind individuals.” Id. at 2. Later, the district court issued an order refining the class definition to include “all legally blind individuals who . . ., due to their disability” were unable to use Labcorp’s e-check in kiosks in California. Id. at 3.
Labcorp appealed the class certification decision to the Ninth Circuit under Rule 23(f). Id. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court and held that even if more than a de minimis number of class members are uninjured, Rule 23 allows district courts to certify such classes. Id. After en banc review was denied by the Ninth Circuit, the U. S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the question whether Rule 23 authorizes certification of damages classes including uninjured class members.
Justice Kavanaugh’s Dissent From The U.S. Supreme Court’s DIG
In the substance of his dissenting opinion, Justice Kavanaugh opined that the predominance requirement of Rule 23 (b)(3) precludes district courts from certifying damages classes that include individuals who have suffered no legally cognizable injury. After discussing his disagreement with the majority’s analysis of the mootness issue (relating to whether Labcorp filed its Rule 23(f) petition against the correct class certification order), he analyzed the merits of the predominance inquiry. Id. at 4-5.
He reasoned that the Ninth Circuit decision ignores several U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the class actions area that, in his view, rule out including non-injury class members in damages classes (among them Comcast v. Behrend and Wal-Mart v. Dukes.) He also pointed to the Advisory Committee notes history of Rule 23(f) to conclude that it was established to prevent efforts to “coerce businesses into costly settlements” that include an unknown number of persons to have suffered no loss at all. Id. at 6. He also opined that such settlements raise the cost of doing business such that they create public policy effects such as higher costs of living that ultimately harm consumers, retirees and workers. Id.
Implications Of The Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court’s DIG order, while exceedingly rare, is actually not the big news embedded in this decision. The dissent by Justice Kavanaugh to the DIG order provides an explanation of how future litigants facing class actions that include individuals who have no legal injury conferring standing can present the issue in arguing Rule 23(b)(3) predominance. Companies facing the litigation pressures that class actions often produce should follow this blog for future developments in what we predict will be a significant area of litigation in the coming years.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Shannon Noelle, and Anna Sheridan
Duane Morris Takeaways: In an order issued on May 13, 2025, Judge Joshua Wolson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that a case removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction had to be remanded back to state court given that the amount-in-controversy (AIC) alleged was based on an attorneys’ fee award that exceeded the plaintiff’s damages award by “at least seven times.”
Case Background
On January 9, 2025, Plaintiff Frank Wise sued his former employer Kimberly-Clark, a manufacturer of paper-based consumer products, in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on behalf of himself and a putative class, accusing his former employer of violating the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”) by failing to pay overtime for the time spent walking to and from job assignments in the Defendant’s manufacturing facility. As part of its remedial regime, the PMWA permits a prevailing party to recover “reasonable” attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff Wise estimated that his damages totaled $9,350.30, but on his cover sheet he indicated that the amount in controversy totaled “[m]ore than $50,000.00” for the amalgamated claims of the class. (ECF No. 1-3, p. 2).
On February 26, 2025, Defendant Kimberly-Clark removed the action to federal court, asserting that the amount in controversy was over $75,000 because Plaintiff Wise “may try to recover at least $78,375.00 in attorney’s fees.” (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 24, 29). Plaintiff Wise moved to remand by including with that motion a declaration from his attorneys that if the lawsuit proceeded on an individual, rather than a class wide basis, the Plaintiff and his attorneys would waive the right to recover attorneys’ fees that would cause the amount in controversy to cross $75,000.
The Court’s Order
Judge Wolson found that Defendant Kimberly-Clark did not carry its burden to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, which the Defendant primarily based on its attorneys’ fees estimate. Although attorneys’ fees can be factored into the amount in controversy threshold, the attorneys’ fees sought must be reasonable. To pinpoint the legal standard under Pennsylvania law for determining when an award of attorneys’ fees is reasonable, Judge Wolson surveyed case law interpreting statutes similar to the PMWA, such as the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, where Pennsylvania courts determined that the “term reasonable” incorporates the concept of proportionality between the damages award and attorneys’ fees award. Though Pennsylvania law contains no “hard-and-fast rule for the acceptable ratio,” courts consider “the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite properly to conduct the case, the customary charges of the members of the bar for similar services, the amount involved in the controversy and benefits resulting to the clients from the services, and the contingency or certainty of the compensation.” (internal citations and quotations omitted). Applying this framework, Judge Wolson found that a 7:1 ratio for attorneys’ fees as compared to damages was unreasonable and could not be used to reach the jurisdictional threshold.
Judge Wolson further opined that this conclusion also was consistent with protecting the judicial economy of federal courts as litigants and attorneys should not be able to use exorbitant attorneys’ fees estimates to circumvent the amount in controversy requirement to invoke diversity jurisdiction. In the case at hand, the parties agreed for purposes of the motion that Plaintiff Wise could recover $9,350.30 in monetary damages and that the legal issues at hand involved straight-forward unpaid overtime claims. Notably, Judge Wolson also found the Plaintiff’s attorneys’ declaration, waiving the right to collect attorneys’ fees, to be unavailing as it arguably amended the complaint.
Implications For Employers
The Court’s holding in Wise emphasizes the importance of providing concrete evidence regarding damages sought and reasonable attorneys’ fee estimates when seeking to remove based on diversity jurisdiction. Ultimately, the damages and attorneys’ fees alleged in the complaint take precedence, but proportionality must be considered even in the context of fee shifting statutes. If a party’s jurisdictional math does not add up, they may be sent back to where the matter started: state court.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Tyler Z. Zmick, and George J. Schaller
Duane Morris Takeaways: On April 4, 2025,inRodriguez v. Autotrader.com, Inc., No. 24-CV-08735, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70074 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2025),Judge R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice a class action complaint which asserted violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) for lack of standing. Plaintiff admitted she was a “tester” and knew that defendant Autotrader’s website contained tracking devices before accessing it, leading the Court to rule that Plaintiff failed to allege an unlawful use of pen registers and trace devices under the CIPA.
This ruling is welcome news for businesses sued by so-called “tester” plaintiffs, who actively seek out websites to “test” for potential CIPA violations.
Case Background
Plaintiff Rebeka Rodriguez filed a class action complaint against Autotrader.com, asserting claims under (i) CIPA § 631 for violating California’s wiretapping and eavesdropping statute and (ii) CIPA § 638.51 for violating California’s statute prohibiting the use of pen registers and trace devices.
Plaintiff claimed that Autotrader’s website immediately installs third-party tracking software that collects various types of information to deliver targeted advertising. She alleged that she ran a search containing “confidential” and “private” information using a search bar on Autotrader’s website, and that such information was then shared with third parties without her consent. Plaintiff also claimed that when she visited the website, tracking software was installed on her browser which “captured and sent identifying information to third parties.” Plaintiff admitted that she was actively seeking out privacy violations when she visited Autotrader’s website.
On March 14, 2025, the District Court granted Autotrader’s request that Plaintiff’s CIPA § 631 claim be dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing. See Rodriguez v. Autotrader.com, Inc., No. 24-CV-08735, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47308, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2025). The Court’s March 14 order also directed the parties to show cause in writing “whether Plaintiff has standing to bring her § 638.51 claim.” Id.
The Court’s Order
On April 4, 2025, the Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s remaining pen register claim under CIPA § 638.51 for lack of standing. The Court relied on the same analysis used in dismissing Plaintiff’s § 631 claim – specifically, Plaintiff was “a tester that actively [sought] out privacy violations,” she “had no expectation of privacy’ when she visited [Autotrader’s] website, and therefore, lacked an injury sufficient to establish standing.” Rodriguez v. Autotrader.com, Inc.,No. 24-CV-08735, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47308, *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2025). In its ruling, the Court determined that neither party disputed that Plaintiff’s § 638.51 claim “requires the same disclosure of sensitive information and reasonable expectation of privacy as her § 631 claim.” Id.
The Court was not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that her status as a tester did not preclude “standing even though she expected or sought out an injury,”finding her supporting authority distinguishable because the cases she relied on involved “First Amendment and ADA claims for which the plaintiffs were injured regardless of their expectations or intentions.” Id. at *3. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s § 638.51 claim with prejudice.
Implications For Companies
While the ruling in Rodriguez is a positive development for businesses, the scope of the decision was limited in that Plaintiff lacked standing only because her claim required a violation of her “reasonable expectation of privacy.” “Tester” plaintiffs in other class action lawsuits frequently assert claims against website hosts and website service providers and can proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage.
While companies cannot prevent “tester” plaintiffs from filing similar lawsuits, companies can protect themselves from liability under the CIPA by employing safeguards on their websites in the form of data-tracking disclosures and obtaining consent from users.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Shannon Noelle, and Anna Sheridan
Duane Morris Takeaways: On May 8, 2025, the Beard Group sponsored the Class Action Money & Ethics Conference in New York City. During the conference, over 200 attendees discussed key issues impacting class action litigation in 2025. We were privileged to chair the Conference and present the keynote address on class action litigation trends for the past year and what 2025 has in store for Corporate America. The discussion at the program underscores the cutting-edge issues facing companies in this area of law.
Key Trends For The Past Year
In our keynote address, we discussed the top ten developments in the class action litigation space. The leading trends center on the new era of heightened risks and elevated exposures that pivot on record-breaking settlement numbers, the high conversion numbers for class certification motions into certified classes, and the rise in privacy and data breach class actions.
On the settlement front, 2022 saw $66 billion in total proceeds when measured by the top ten settlements in all areas of law. In 2023, that figure totaled $51 billion, for a combined total of $117 billion over the past 24 months. And in 2024, those numbers came in at $42 billion, which pushed the settlement numbers to $159 billion for the past 36 months.
In terms of class certification motions, the Plaintiffs bar successfully secured certification in 63% of cases over the past year. Those figures ranged from nearly 83% in WARN lawsuits to 37% in RICO cases. That said, the plaintiffs’ bar has proven its track record to convert class action lawsuit filings in to certified classes at a high rate.
In the privacy and data breach space, such claims became ubiquitous in 2024, with a virtual explosion in those types of lawsuits. While certification rates were quite low in data breach situations, the plaintiffs’ bar secured certification in privacy class actions at a higher rate.
We also discussed how class actions over environmental. social, and governance issues went mainstream in the past year. We predicted that ESG class actions will continue to increase, especially as the plaintiffs’ bar refines their theories of recovery and begin to monetize their claims. In particular, securities fraud class actions over DEI commitments are increasing as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Students For Fair Admissions, Inc., et al. v. President And Fellows Of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023). Both plaintiffs’ lawyers and defense counsel anticipate more litigation in this space.
Data Breach Panel
An interesting panel discussion – consisting primarily of plaintiffs’ lawyers – ensued after the keynote address on wiretapping class claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act and data privacy class action litigation. They reflected on the patchwork quilt of rulings in these areas over the past year and the low certification rates due to problems in surmounting standing issues based on lack of injury-in-fact showings.
The panelists predicted a subtle shift in privacy and data breach lawsuits to effectuate a “work around” to these impediments. Multiple plaintiffs’ counsel predicted more reliance on state law claims and litigation of class-wide claims in state court.
Panel On Class Notice Strategies
The next panel focused on trends for class notice in 2025 and how artificial intelligence is now mainstream in terms of its use to facilitate the notice send to class members. The panelists expressed how these practices are quite innovative and rapidly evolving. Notice through social media and/or texts or email also is considerable cheaper than U.S. Mail, which is driving down settlement administration costs.
The challenge, however, is to prevent fraudulent claims from individuals seeking a share of the settlement pot. As to take rates, social media advertising is driving the rates upward, but the rates in data breach cases remain low at 1% to 5% (as compared to other types of settlements).- Class member demographics also impact the take rate, as older individuals are apt to view social media notice as “junk mail” or a scam. Conversely, staying ahead of fraudsters has created an imperative for settlement administrators (e.g., where settlement shares are claimed by an IP address of a bot).
Panel On Fraud In The Class Action Process
Another panel discussed the rise of fraudsters in the class action space. Some involve “deep fakes” of persons who seek to assert false claims as named plaintiffs or class members. Others involve cyber-criminals who infiltrate the settlement administration process through artificial intelligence software and seek class settlement shares on a false basis.
Judicial responses have run the gamut from shutting down the settlement administration process and rebooting it with enhanced security measures to referrals to law enforcement personnel to combat fraud. Panelists predicted that judges are apt to ratchet up the scrutiny of final settlement approval of class actions, and possibly promote direct mail notice over digital communications.
Implications For Companies
Class action litigation is a fact of life for corporations operating in the United States. Today’s conference underscored that change is inevitable, and class actions litigation is no exception.
Duane Morris Takeaways: Given the importance of compliance with workplace anti-discrimination laws for our clients, we are pleased to present the third annual edition of the Duane Morris EEOC Litigation Review – 2025. The EEOC Litigation Review – 2025 analyzes the EEOC’s enforcement lawsuit filings in 2024 and the significant legal decisions and trends impacting EEOC litigation for 2025. We hope that employers will benefit from this deep dive into how the EEOC’s priorities reveal themselves through litigation. Click here to download a copy of the EEOC Litigation Review – 2025 eBook.
The Review explains the impact of the EEOC’s six enforcement priorities as outlined in its Strategic Enforcement Plan on employers’ business planning and how the direction of the Commission’s Plan should influence key employer decisions. In its annual performance report for FY 2024, the EEOC touted a record $700 million in monetary recoveries for workers through litigation and administrative avenues. Moving into FY 2025 with a $33.22 million budget increase for the EEOC and significant changes implemented by the Trump administration, employers’ compliance with federal workplace laws and agency guidance remains a corporate imperative.
The Review also contains a compilation of significant rulings decided in 2024 that impacted EEOC-initiated litigation and a list of the most significant settlements in EEOC cases in 2024.
We hope readers will enjoy this new publication. We will continue to update blog readers on any important EEOC developments, and look forward to sharing further thoughts and analysis in 2024!
Mark your calendars for our biannual webinar analyzing the latest EEOC developments on Monday, May 5, 2025 from 12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. Central. Reserve your virtual seat for the program here. Join Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman, Jennifer Riley, Alex Karasik and Greg Tsonis for a live panel discussion analyzing the latest impact of the dramatic changes at the EEOC, including its new strategic priorities and the array of EEOC lawsuits filed in the first six months of fiscal year 2025.
Our panel will empower corporate counsel, human resource professionals and business leaders with key insights into the EEOC’s latest enforcement initiatives and strategies designed to minimize the risk of drawing the agency’s scrutiny in what projects to be a transformative year for the Commission.
