Hesse v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.

Background

Steve Hesse and Adam Buxbaum brought this class action against Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. The claims concerned allegations that Godiva’s packaging and marketing deceived consumers into believing that its chocolate products came from Belgium, including through the “Belgium 1926” representation.

The parties reached a settlement. The court had previously granted preliminary approval and provisionally certified a settlement class. After notice was provided, the court considered the plaintiffs’ request for final approval, their request for attorneys’ fees and costs and service awards, three objections, and concerns raised by the Attorneys General of Florida, Idaho, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and Utah.

Notice and Class Certification

The court found that the notice program complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process. The program included direct email, reminder emails, a settlement website, publication, and digital and social-media advertising. The court stated that an estimated 82 percent of targeted class members were reached, and that Godiva possessed email addresses for 8,235,538 potential class members.

The certified Settlement Class consists of people who purchased any Godiva chocolate product in the United States during the Class Period, which ran from January 31, 2015, through October 26, 2021. The court excluded, among others, Godiva personnel, distributors, retailers and resellers, governmental entities, certain people connected with the court and mediation, class counsel, and people who timely opted out.

The court found that the class satisfied the requirements for numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy under Rule 23(a), as well as predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3). It appointed Hesse and Buxbaum as class representatives and Faruqi & Faruqi LLP and the Wand Law Firm, P.C. as class counsel.

Settlement Approval

The court finally approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the class. It relied on the parties’ substantial discovery, the risks and costs of continued litigation, arm’s-length negotiations assisted by a mediator, the reaction of class members, and the proposed method of distributing payments.

A valid claimant receives $1.25 per qualifying purchase, up to $15 without proof of purchase or $25 with proof of purchase. The court noted that more than 500,000 valid claims had been filed and that more than $7.5 million would be paid to class members. The court rejected objections concerning the notice program, claims deadline, claims rate, and other settlement terms.

The court did not approve Public Justice Foundation as the recipient of unclaimed funds. Instead, it selected the National Consumer Law Center because its work reasonably approximated the class’s interests and it agreed to use the funds to advance consumer rights and address false advertising.

The settlement releases claims against Godiva and other released parties that are based on, arise out of, or relate to the allegations in the action, including claims concerning false or deceptive country-of-origin statements and the “Belgium 1926” claim. Claims for alleged bodily injuries arising from use of the products were excluded from the release. The 18 people who validly opted out are not bound by the order or final judgment.

Fees and Service Awards

The plaintiffs requested $5,000,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The court found that request excessive when measured against the actual benefit obtained by the class. It awarded $2,850,000 in total fees and expenses, consisting of $2,782,164.56 in attorneys’ fees and $67,835.44 in litigation costs.

The court also awarded $2,500 to each of the two named plaintiffs as a class representative service award. The court found that each had spent between 30 and 35 hours on the case, but concluded that the requested $5,000 award for each plaintiff was not justified by the described services.

Disposition

The court directed the parties to implement the settlement, authorized the settlement administrator to issue payments to timely and valid claimants, and ordered unpaid negotiated funds to be paid to the National Consumer Law Center. Upon the settlement’s effective date and entry of final judgment, the action is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction over settlement administration, completion, enforcement, and interpretation.

The order states that the settlement and approval do not constitute an admission by Godiva of fault, wrongdoing, liability, or the validity of the claims.