Vela v. AMC Networks, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against AMC Networks, Inc. involving claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act, a federal law concerning the disclosure of video-viewing information. The proposed settlement addressed claims that AMC disclosed class members’ personally identifiable information to third parties without consent. The court reviewed the parties’ proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement, the motion for final approval, and the motion for attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and service awards.

Settlement Class

For purposes of entering judgment on the settlement, the court certified a class under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class included people in the United States who were registered users of AMC services through an AMC-operated website or mobile application, or through a streaming service, and who requested or obtained specific video content from those services during the class period of January 18, 2021, through January 10, 2024.

The court excluded several groups, including people who had previously asserted Video Privacy Protection Act claims against AMC through counsel other than class counsel or counsel of record; the judge and magistrate judge presiding over the action and their families; AMC and specified related people and entities; people who timely and properly requested exclusion; and the legal representatives, successors, or assigns of excluded people. The court found that the class-certification requirements were satisfied, including numerosity, common questions, typical claims, adequate representation, and superiority of a class action. It appointed the named plaintiffs as class representatives and appointed the identified attorneys and law firms as class counsel.

Approval of the Settlement

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the settlement class. It found that the class representatives and counsel adequately represented the class, the settlement was negotiated at arm’s length, the benefits were meaningful and equitable, and the settlement was reasonable in light of the risks, complexity, expense, and likely duration of further litigation. The court also found no evidence of collusion.

The court approved the notice program as satisfying Rule 23 and due-process requirements. It reaffirmed Angeion Group, LLC as settlement administrator and directed class counsel and the administrator to carry out the settlement according to its terms. The court stated that no objections had been filed and confirmed that people who validly requested exclusion would not be bound by the settlement or receive settlement proceeds.

Fees and Service Awards

The court approved $2,766,666 in attorneys’ fees and $25,127.80 in reimbursement of litigation costs as reasonable. It also approved a $2,000 service award for each of the nine class representatives, for a total of $18,000, payable from the settlement fund under the settlement’s terms.

Judgment and Effect

The court approved the settlement in all respects and ordered that it be implemented. The action was dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. Once the settlement became effective, the plaintiffs and participating class members were to release the covered claims against the released parties and would be barred from bringing proceedings based on those claims, except for participating in the settlement. The court retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over disputes concerning compliance with or administration and enforcement of the settlement and related orders. The Clerk was directed to close the case.