smells bad? 9th Circuit approves tuna voucher settlement as not a coupon settlement

Hendricks v. Ference, 754 Fed.Appx. 510 (9th Cir. 2018) Objectors appealed the approval of a class action settlement over the alleged under-filling of Starkist tuna cans; over a partial dissent, the court of appeals affirmed. In particular, the court affirmed the district court’s determination that the award of tuna vouchers was not a form of coupon relief under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). “The vouchers did not expire, they were freely transferrable, they could be used at a wide variety of stores (any retailer selling Starkist products), and the vouchers had sufficient value that class members could use them to purchase tuna without additional out-of-pocket expense.”  The underlying claims were about insufficient tuna, and the settlement supplied the missing tuna—using a voucher instead of mailing cans to class members “does not transform the settlement from a tuna settlement into a coupon settlement” (and is almost certainly a…

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law posts –

This entry was posted in Advertising Law and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply