Ford v. 24/7, Inc.

Background

Michael Ford, Noe Gamboa, and Madison Copeland sued [24]7.AI, Inc., individually and on behalf of similarly situated people. The settlement concerns a 2017 data incident that involved unauthorized access to customer payment-card data and personally identifiable information. The parties reached their settlement through mediation and arm’s-length negotiations. [24]7.AI did not admit liability.

The settlement class consists of people who were mailed notification by Best Buy about the data incident. For settlement purposes only, the court found that the class met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, including numerosity, common legal and factual questions, typical claims, adequate representation, and the predominance of common issues over individualized ones. The court estimated that the class included approximately 378,768 people across the United States.

Settlement Terms and Notice

Eligible class members may seek reimbursement of up to $2,000 total for specified out-of-pocket expenses resulting from the data incident, including certain bank fees, card-reissuance fees, overdraft fees, late fees, credit-report costs, credit-freeze costs, and fraud-resolution costs. Documentation is required for those expenses. Class members may also claim up to three hours of lost time at $20 per hour by attesting to the time spent addressing the incident, and may claim two additional hours with adequate documentation.

The settlement releases claims against [24]7 related to the data incident. Attorneys’ fees and costs are paid separately by [24]7 and do not reduce valid class-member payments. The court approved $450,000 in attorneys’ fees and litigation costs and a $2,000 service award for each of Ford, Gamboa, and Copeland. The court also finally approved Epiq Systems, Inc. as settlement administrator.

The court found that notice sent by email or first-class mail was the best practicable notice under the circumstances and satisfied Rule 23 and constitutional due-process requirements. One person objected, arguing that the process for excluding oneself from the class was unfair. The court overruled the objection, finding no factual or legal basis to reject the settlement. Two people validly opted out and are not bound by or eligible for the settlement benefits.

Ruling

Judge Beth Labson Freeman finally approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; confirmed the class certification and appointments of the class representatives and class counsel; approved the fees, costs, and service awards; and ordered the parties to comply with the settlement. The court entered final judgment, retained jurisdiction over settlement administration, enforcement, and consummation, and ordered that the action be dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees except as provided by the settlement and court orders.