Supreme Court Holds Corporations Cannot Strategically Skirt Class Action Liability

Like many other strategic maneuvers by corporations that can only be characterized as one-sided and unfair, such as burying arbitration clauses in paperwork which deny consumers the right to a fair and impartial jury trial and immunize corporations from sweeping class-wide liability no matter how egregious their conduct, corporations have been attempting to suppress class-wide liability by offering individual plaintiffs the relief necessary to make them whole at the outset of the litigation in order to shut down multi-million dollar class actions.  In other words, the corporation’s argument is that by offering the named plaintiffs their full relief (which is often only a few hundred or few thousand dollars), the plaintiff has been made whole and, thus, the case is moot. By making such an offer, the corporation’s hope is to shut down its potential liability for multiple millions of dollars it would owe to all of the remaining class members.

Rightly so, named plaintiffs, who have promised to uphold their duties to protect and pursue rights not only on behalf of themselves but all of the absent class members, generally reject such strategic offers by corporations meant to shut down the absent class members’ rights to pursue justice. Instead, they choose to reject such strategic offers to pursue justice in court on behalf of all those similarly harmed.  Recognizing that the corporation’s offers is nothing more than a strategic move to moot the lawsuit, the consumer’s position, correctly, is that they have every right to reject such offers and that such a rejection does not moot their class-wide claims, particularly in the face of the corporation’s continuing denial of liability.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the consumer.  The high court held corporations cannot cut off class action claims by making an offer of full relief to individual plaintiffs where the plaintiff refuses to accept the offer.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that an unaccepted settlement offer has no force.”  Just like other “unaccepted contract offers, it creates no lasting right or obligation. With the offer off the table and the defendant’s continuing denial of liability, adversity between the parties persists.”  Today is a victory for consumers in holding corporations accountable for their conduct that may have harmed hundreds if not millions of consumers. The case is Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

To schedule your free initial consultation, contact us online or call (619) 342-8000 today!

SHARE

COMMENTS & DISCUSSIONS

Related Posts

What Is Disability Pride?

What Is Disability Pride?

Disability pride is accepting and honoring each person’s unique experience with differing abilities and seeing it as a natural and …

Read More
Class Action Suit Against SDSU

Haeggquist & Eck, LLP Title IX Clients Featured on ESPN for Class Action Suit Against SDSU

Haeggquist & Eck are proud to team up with Bailey Glasser to represent former and current SDSU athletes in their …

Read More
Screenshot_20210825-104602_Gallery

HAE Client “Dr. Nick” Yphantides Highlighted In Media Coverage Of Disability Discrimination Case Against San Diego County

Local and national media outlets covered our client Nick Yphantides’ case against the County of San Diego for disability discrimination, …

Read More
Translate »