Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC

Background

The plaintiffs and AT&T Mobility LLC entered into an amended class settlement agreement. The settlement class consisted of consumers residing in California, based on the accountholder’s last known billing address, who purchased an unlimited data plan from AT&T and exceeded AT&T’s applicable data-use threshold for at least one user on the account on or before March 31, 2021. The threshold had to be one that made the user eligible for data slowing or lower-priority network access under AT&T’s network-management policies.

The court had previously granted preliminary approval. After notice was provided, no class member objected, 35 people requested exclusion, and more than 144,000 claims for Group B payments were submitted. The court found that the notice complied with the Class Action Fairness Act and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and that it gave class members adequate information about the case, the settlement class, the claims, the right to appear through counsel, the exclusion process, and the binding effect of the judgment.

Settlement approval

The court reaffirmed that the case was properly maintained as a class action for settlement purposes under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). It also reaffirmed the appointments of Marcus Roberts, Kenneth Chewey, and Ashley Chewey as settlement-class representatives and of settlement-class counsel.

Under the settlement, class members subject to throttling before AT&T adopted congestion-aware throttling would receive payments without submitting a claim. Class members who exceeded AT&T’s data-use threshold after that change could submit a simple claim form stating that they believed their data speed had been reduced at least once. Members in both groups could receive both payments. The payment amounts for the two groups would be distributed at a 3:4 ratio between Group A and Group B.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the class’s best interest. It considered the plaintiffs’ case strength, the risks and costs of continued litigation, the risks of maintaining class certification through trial, the settlement amount, the discovery conducted, the stage of the litigation, counsel’s experience and views, and the lack of objections from government participants. The court also found that the allocation of settlement funds was reasonable and equitable. The approval did not constitute an admission by AT&T or the other released parties of liability, wrongdoing, or the truth of any allegation.

Judgment and fee award

The court ordered the parties and settlement administrator to implement the settlement and distribute payments. It dismissed the action with prejudice and provided that settlement-class members and other releasing parties released the covered claims and were permanently barred from bringing those claims against released parties, while preserving actions to enforce the settlement agreement. The court retained jurisdiction over settlement implementation, distribution, fees, service awards, and related matters.

The court granted the motion for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and service awards. It awarded settlement-class counsel $2,932,333.98 in attorneys’ fees, approximately 24.44% of the $12,000,000 settlement fund; $67,666.02 in litigation expenses; and $2,500 to each class representative. All awards were to be paid from the common settlement fund. Judge Edward M. Chen directed immediate entry of the final order and judgment.