CLASS ACTION & MDL QTR 1 I 2026
Dorian Simmons | AI Class Action Updates Privacy, Cyber & Data Strategy counsel Dorian Simmons discusses the uptick in lawsuits involving AI voice agents and AI-powered call monitoring services, providing insights on what the courts are saying and actions businesses can take to mitigate litigation risk. Overview CLASS ACTION & MDL VIDEO PLAY Alysa Austin | Update on Data Breach Litigation Trends Privacy, Cyber & Data Strategy senior associate Alysa Austin discusses trends in data breach litigation following the record-setting 3,000-plus breaches in 2025. As this remains a highly active area of litigation into the first quarter of 2026, Alysa provides further insights on developing plaintiff tactics and risk areas. The Class Action & MDL Roundup is published by Alston & Bird LLP to provide a summary of significant developments to our clients and friends. It is intended to be informational and does not constitute legal advice regarding any specific situation. This material may also be considered attorney advertising under court rules of certain jurisdictions. Where the (Class) Action Is Welcome back to the Class Action & MDL Roundup! This edition covers notable class actions from the first quarter of 2026. Seasoned or smoked? That is the question as the food and beverage industry remains a target for deceptive marketing lawsuits in this consumer protection class action. Ringless voicemail technology has also caused quite a stir on the consumer protection front where TCPA class actions continue to rise. Across the board, courts continued to closely scrutinize class certification, arbitration, and predominance issues across a range of substantive areas. Notable decisions included the Fourth Circuit’s reversal of class certification in an ERISA fiduciary-breach action, a significant biometric privacy victory for plaintiffs, and several rulings addressing the enforceability and scope of arbitration agreements in technology and products liability disputes. We wrap up the Roundup with a summary of class action settlements finalized in the first quarter. We hope you enjoy this installment and, as always, welcome your feedback on this issue.
CLASS ACTION & MDL QTR 1 I 2026 Consumer Protection Almond Grower Smokes Plaintiff’s Class Certification Bid Clark v. Blue Diamond Growers, No. 1:22-cv-01591 (E.D. Ill.) (Feb. 20, 2026). Judge Alonso. Denying motion for class certification. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant almond grower engaged in deceptive marketing when selling its “Smokehouse Almonds” products because they derive their smokey flavor from seasoning (instead of being smoked on hardwood in a smokehouse). The plaintiff sought to certify a class of all Illinois purchasers of these almond products from March 2019 through the present. Citing the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, the defendant argued that the plaintiff learned that the Smokehouse Almonds were seasoned rather than smoked only when she viewed her attorneys’ advertisement for this suit and continued to purchase the product every few months for over a year. The court found that the plaintiff was inadequate to serve as a class representative because she could not show proximate causation as required to prevail on her claim. Court Certifies TCPA Class Action Based on Use of Ringless Voicemails Garvey v. Gaitan, No. 2:23-cv-00920 (D. Nev.) (Mar. 13, 2026). Judge Gordon. Granting motion for class certification. A Nevada federal court certified a class action for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) arising out of calls made by a real estate agent using ringless voicemail technology. The complaint alleged that the agent compiled homeowner contact information from withdrawn or expired online home listings and then sent prerecorded messages as a ringless voicemail to those individuals’phone numbers. Because the defendant had no documentation that she received the plaintiff’s (or any other class member’s) consent before sending these voicemails, the court ruled that the plaintiff had met his burden to certify the class and appoint class counsel. n ERISA Fourth Circuit Reverses Order Rubber-Stamping Class Certification Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial Inc., No. 24-1880 (4th Cir.) (Mar. 10, 2026). Reversing and vacating order granting class certification. The Fourth Circuit reversed an order certifying a mandatory Rule 23(b)(1) class in an ERISA Section 502(a)(2) fiduciarybreach action challenging allegedly underperforming target-date funds. The district court erred by certifying the mandatory Rule 23(b)(1) class based primarily on the derivative nature of Section 502(a)(2) fiduciary-breach claims. In the context of a defined contribution plan, these claims seek individualized monetary relief because they are based on the performance of investments and injury to the participants’ individual retirement accounts and, therefore, could not proceed in a mandatory Rule 23(b)(1) class. The Fourth Circuit also disagreed with the district court’s ruling that Rule 23(a)(2) commonality was “inherent” because liability arose from uniform fiduciary conduct. The district court was required to conduct a rigorous analysis of the prerequisite of commonality. The district court’s overgeneralized approach failed to recognize the potential differences in injuries that can result from a statutory violation. n Liz Brown Liz Brown keeps you up to date on “Health Care Class Actions: Trends and Strategic Considerations” with the American Health Law Association. Once again, Alston & Bird excels in the latest Chambers USA rankings, earning 84 practice rankings and recognition for 172 attorneys. class-ified information
CLASS ACTION & MDL QTR 1 I 2026 The court noted that in managing the case, it would be important to ensure that the parties can proceed on an equal footing, given the significant imbalance between the resources of the claimants and the defendants. n Labor & Employment Tipping the Boat—Improper Tip Pooling Leads to $21 Million Judgment Curtin v. Perry’s Restaurants Ltd., No. 1:22-cv-00027 (W.D. Tex.). Judge Pitman. Awarding plaintiffs over $21 million. A Texas federal court entered a $21.2 million judgment against Perry’s Restaurants Ltd. and its owner in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) suit alleging unpaid wages and misappropriated tips brought by more than 700 workers. The plaintiffs argued that Perry’s unlawfully required servers to contribute a portion of their tips into a tip pool that included workers who were not eligible to share tips. The defendants argued that the workers’ damages calculations were overstated because they included non-violation workweeks, time outside the statute of limitations, and tip-pool contributions that had been lawfully distributed to eligible employees. The court sided with the plaintiffs and ruled that Perry’s willfully violated the FLSA by forcing workers to share tips with employees who did not regularly interact with customers or otherwise qualify as tipped employees. Judge Robert Pitman awarded about $3.44 million in unpaid minimum wages, an equal amount in liquidated damages after finding that the employer was not able to prove it acted in good faith, over $7 million for misappropriated tips, an equal amount in liquidated damages, and $263,475 from taxes and post-judgment interest. In finding that Perry’s lacked an honest belief that its pay practices complied with federal law, the court cited a prolonged history of FLSA litigation and a National Labor Relations Board complaint against the company related to tip-pool distribution. The case highlights the substantial financial exposure employers face for tip-pool violations under federal wage law. n Privacy & Data Security Calculating Consent: Sixth Circuit Sends TCPA Class Action to Arbitration Dahdah v. Rocket Mortgage LLC, No. 24-1910 (6th Cir.) (Jan. 26, 2026). Reversing denial of motion to compel arbitration. Michael Dahdah visited LowerMyBills.com—a mortgage referral site tied to Rocket Mortgage—to explore refinancing opportunities. Each time he visited, he input personal information and clicked “Calculate” buttons to receive his refinance offers. Below those buttons, in smaller font, the site disclosed that clicking would constitute consent to its hyperlinked terms of use, which contained an arbitration clause governing disputes. After Rocket Mortgage placed at least eight sales calls to Dahdah’s number, he filed a TCPA class action, and the district court denied Rocket’s motion to compel arbitration. International UK High Court Issues Important Case Management Decision in Worker Abuse Claims Dhan Kumar Limbu and others v Dyson Technology Limited and others [2026] EWHC 38 (KB) The English High Court has given case management directions in a collective action supply-chain case involving a significant imbalance between vulnerable claimants and well-resourced defendants. Twenty-four migrant workers issued proceedings against the defendants alleging that they were unlawfully trafficked to Malaysia and subjected to conditions of forced labour and exploitative working conditions. The operators of the factories were not defendants to the claim, but the allegation was that the Dyson defendants exercised a high degree of control over operations and conditions at the factories such that there was liability in negligence, false imprisonment, intimidation, assault, and unjust enrichment. With a jurisdiction challenge having been determined in the claimants’favour, the High Court had to consider how best to manage the claims going forward. The claims were not brought under a group litigation order, and there was a prospect of the claimants growing from 24 to 100 as the proceedings continued. It was agreed that a number of lead claimants would need to be identified. The main case management issue was when that should take place and for what purpose: 1. The claimants argued that the lead claimants should be identified immediately and that the court should order a split trial of liability and quantum. 2. The defendants argued that it is not yet necessary to identify lead claimants but that there should instead be a preliminary trial of certain preliminary liability issues first without any evidence from the claimants. The court preferred the former approach. Whilst there was a ‘superficial attraction’ to the defendants’ approach, the court should not be distracted by what it described as a‘siren song’. One of the problems is that the defendants’approach would have given them two chances to contest liability: firstly on the assumed facts and then on the actual facts. There would moreover be a ‘dangerous confusion as to the boundaries between the facts that are to be assumed without proof and the facts that are to be determined on the evidence.’The claimants would also be delayed from giving evidence for potentially many years. Get the essentials of “Japan’s Reemergence in Global Standard Essential Patent Disputes” from Bryan Lutz and Jason Sigalos in The Global Regulatory Developments Journal. Bryan Lutz Jason Sigalos
CLASS ACTION & MDL QTR 1 I 2026 Hey Siri, Certify a Class: Users of Voice Assistant Obtain Class Certification of BIPA Claim Zaluda v. Apple Inc., No. 2019 CH 11771 (Ill. Cir. Ct.) (Jan. 29, 2026). Judge Mullen. Granting motion for class certification. The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that Apple’s Siri voice assistant creates, captures, collects, stores, and distributes biometric identifiers in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). They sought certification of a class of Illinois residents who used Siri “and had their voiceprints or biometric feature vectors capable of identifying them computed from their voice signals and/or raw audio collected, captured, possessed and/or disseminated by Apple Inc..” The court ruled that the requirements for certifying a class were satisfied. Commonality and predominance were satisfied because the case “involves speaker and speech recognition software processes applied in a uniform manner for all Siri users.”The court rejected Apple’s argument that individualized questions about which Apple device was used, the manner in which they used it, and changes to Siri’s speech recognition functions during the proposed class period defeated the predominance of common questions, reasoning that these differences “do not affect or diminish the validity of Plaintiffs’ claims on behalf of the proposed Class based on Siri’s speech recognition processes”and were“issues of class management, not matters of class certification.” For example, the court found that potential class members in Illinois could self-submit affidavits to establish their use of Siri if Apple were found liable. Because all the requirements for certifying a class action were satisfied, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. n Products Liability Defendant Shimmies Out of Class Certification Ruling Lessin v. Ford Motor Co., No. 25-2211 (9th Cir.) (Feb. 11, 2026). Affirming in part and reversing in part the district court’s class certification order. The plaintiffs filed suit alleging latent defects in Super Duty trucks across various design platforms and model years. The district court certified a number of classes asserting state-law claims, and Ford appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, clarifying Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover on how defect manifestation affects class certification. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the consent disclosure was a “hybrid” (or “sign-in wrap”) offer that satisfied the four-factor totality test in California contract law. The decision, which is a meaningful win for companies relying on hybrid online agreements to channel claims into arbitration, reinforces the notion that design choices can have serious legal consequences. Be Careful What You Wish For: Broader Class Definition Fatal to Class Certification in CIPA Case In re Meta Pixel Tax Filing Cases, No. 5:22-cv-07557 (N.D. Cal.) (Mar. 30, 2026). Judge Pitts. Denying motion for class certification. The plaintiffs brought a consolidated class action alleging that Meta Platforms’ use of the Meta Pixel, a tracking tool for analytics and advertising purposes, unlawfully collected private user data from the websites of two online tax-filing services. According to the plaintiffs, the pixel transmitted sensitive information, including data reflecting users’ tax-related activities, without user consent. The plaintiffs asserted that this conduct violated multiple provisions of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), including statutes addressing wiretapping, eavesdropping, pen registers, and the furnishing of eavesdropping devices, as well as California’s Unfair Competition Law. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in its entirety. The court denied class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because the plaintiffs did not show predominance. The court’s decision turned on individualized statutes of limitations tied to the changed scope of the proposed classes. The plaintiffs’ operative complaint focused on Meta’s alleged collection of sensitive tax-filing information, but the later-proposed class definitions were materially broader and included any website visitor whose data appeared in Meta Pixel databases. Because tolling of CIPA’s one-year statute of limitations would apply only to individuals arguably included within the original class definition, the expanded class would require individualized inquiries into what data Meta collected from each class member to determine both tolling and timeliness. Given the scale of Meta’s data necessitating “a line-by-line review of thousands or millions of lines of data,” the court found predominance lacking. Congrats to Cynthia Cole on her Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing for “Storytelling and the Art of Creativity: Who Holds the Pen?” class-ified information Cynthia Cole class-ified information Check out our Health Data Monetization video series with practical insights on managing risk, responding to regulators and litigants, and positioning health data projects for long-term success
CLASS ACTION & MDL QTR 1 I 2026 Securities Illinois Federal Court Bars Assignee’s Standing in Securities Fraud Action Value Recapture Partners LLC v. The Boeing Company, No. 1:23-cv-16550 (N.D. Ill.) (Feb. 17, 2026). Judge Kendall. Granting defendants’ motion to dismiss securities fraud action. The Northern District of Illinois dismissed a securities fraud action brought by Value Recapture Partners LLC against The Boeing Company and its former CEO Dennis A. Muilenburg. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the October 2018 and March 2019 crashes of two 737 MAX airplanes. The plaintiff acquired securities-fraud claims through an assignment from the Valinor Capital Partners investment funds, which were winding down their operations. The plaintiff did not itself purchase or sell Boeing stock. The court ruled that Value Recapture Partners lacked standing under the purchaser-seller requirement established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, which restricts Rule 10b-5 actions to actual purchasers or sellers of securities. While acknowledging that some courts, including one in the same district, have permitted claims by assignees in narrow circumstances, such as interfamily assignments or when the original members of a purchasing entity bring suit, the court found those exceptions inapplicable here. Value Recapture Partners’ explicit business model of purchasing recovery rights from pooled investment vehicles placed it squarely within the concerns contemplated in Blue Chip: the danger of vexatious litigation and evidentiary difficulties inherent in allowing non-purchasers or non-sellers to sue. The court emphasized that even though the assignment was not an obvious “sham,” the claims were nonetheless assigned to generate federal standing, which Blue Chip aimed to prevent. This decision reinforces the strict application of the purchaser-seller requirement in securities fraud actions, limiting the ability of litigation-focused assignees to acquire and pursue claims under Rule 10b-5. n The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s ruling that common questions predominate because the defect exists in all class vehicles and therefore the injury occurred at the point of sale, not when the defect manifested. The district court had treated Ford’s variable manifestation evidence as irrelevant based on Wolin’s holding that “proof of the manifestation of a defect is not a prerequisite to class certification.”The Ninth Circuit explained, however, courts should not interpret Wolin “to stand for the broad, categorical assertion that manifestation evidence is never relevant at class certification.” Unlike in Wolin, where the parties disputed whether tire wear was due to manifestation of the defect or to other factors, here the parties disputed whether the alleged defect exists in all class vehicles, and there was evidence that the “shimmy” defect manifested at different rates for different model years and platforms encompassed by the certified classes. The panel directed the district court to evaluate the impact of the proffered shimmy manifestation evidence on predominance, consider whether the manifestation evidence affects the merchantability of the vehicles, and consider whether the manifestation evidence impacts materiality and Ford’s duty to disclose. Broad Arbitration Agreement Leads to Absurd Results Hageman v. Hyundai Motor America Inc., No. 24-7823; Bal v. Hyundai Motor America, No. 25-656 (9th Cir.) (Mar. 25, 2026). Affirming order denying motion to compel arbitration. In class actions related to allegedly defective tow-hitch wiring harnesses, Hyundai Motor America Inc. moved to compel arbitration based on a “clickwrap” agreement the plaintiffs were required to agree to in order to use smartphones to control various aspects of their vehicles. The district court denied the motions, and in a split decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Although the arbitration agreement provided that “Hyundai and you agree to arbitrate any and all disputes and claims … relating to … your Vehicle,” the Ninth Circuit concluded that the agreement did not mandate arbitration of the present disputes. The court emphasized that a reasonable customer would not interpret this language as requiring arbitration of claims that are entirely unrelated to the vehicles’ smartphone technology, particularly when read in context with the other portions of the agreement centered on the smartphone technology. It further supported this conclusion under the “absurd results canon.” The Ninth Circuit explained that even if “Vehicle” is defined to mean the entire automobile regardless of its connection to the smartphone technology, the contract’s plain terms cannot be the sole method for interpreting the arbitration provision because it would lead to an absurd result—namely, that by subscribing to use particular smartphone technology within the vehicle, customers agreed to arbitrate disputes involving their vehicles that are unrelated to the technology. n class-ified information The Legal 500 continues to honor Alston & Bird in its U.S. rankings, more than doubling the number of ranked attorneys in the 2026 edition.
CLASS ACTION & MDL QTR 1 I 2026 notice (including social media campaigns, banner ads, and press releases), only two class members opted out, and one class member filed an objection. The court overruled that objection and approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate. Additionally, the court awarded class counsel just over $2.3 million in attorneys’fees, representing one-third of the total settlement fund. ERISA Class Wins Approval of $675,000 Retirement Plan Settlement Bennett v. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, No. 2:24-cv-00592 (E.D. Pa.) (Jan. 22, 2026). Judge Younge. Granting final approval of class settlement. Judge Younge granted final approval of a $675,000 settlement resolving ERISA claims that Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis and related defendants improperly assessed nonelective retirement contributions against certain income partners and counsel participating in the firm’s retirement plan. The court certified the settlement class and found the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e), as well as the Third Circuit’s Girsh and Prudential factors, emphasizing that the recovery represented approximately 68% of potential damages amid significant collection risks given the firm’s dissolution. Interestingly, the court approved an innovative tax-advantaged distribution structure, which preserved the tax-favored treatment of retirement benefits even though the underlying ERISA plan had already been terminated and the firm was dissolving. The court further awarded one-third of the fund in attorneys’ fees and a $10,000 service award to the class representative. Court Approves $900,000 FLSA Settlement Willis v. Government Employees Insurance Company d/b/a GEICO, No. 5:23-cv-00430 (M.D. Ga.) (Jan. 23, 2026). Judge Treadwell. Certifying collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and approving $900,000 settlement agreement. Judge Treadwell certified a collective action brought under the FLSA against GEICO for its alleged failure to pay overtime wages and approved a settlement agreement under which GEICO will pay $900,000. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, $305,362.50 will be paid to the plaintiffs (less all employer-side payroll taxes), $520,500 will be paid to plaintiffs’ counsel, payments of either $5,000 or $20,000 will be paid to each of the named plaintiffs, and $14,137.50 will be used for settlement administration costs. Judge Treadwell found the settlement agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate and “in the best interests of the Plaintiffs.” He also relied on the “complexity, expense, risks and probable protracted duration of further litigation” in approving the settlement. Settlements First Circuit Affirms Enforcement of $550,000 Global Settlement Mongue v. The Wheatleigh Corp., No. 24-1488 (1st Cir.) (Jan. 21, 2026). Affirming $550,000 settlement. The First Circuit affirmed a district court order enforcing a global settlement agreement for numerous suits by employees and former employees of the Wheatleigh Hotel in Massachusetts who alleged violations of wage and overtime laws under the FLSA and Massachusetts state law. After certification was granted in one of the suits, class counsel and defense counsel reached a “global settlement” via email, totaling $550,000. The agreed-upon settlement was to dispose of all four lawsuits involved, although each case had its own individual allotments under the settlement. Wheatleigh later attempted to avoid settlement, but the trial court enforced it. On appeal, Wheatleigh argued that (1) the agreed-upon resolution was not the same as what was enforced and approved by the court; and (2) it was unenforceable on public policy grounds and contingent on a class action settlement that should not have been approved, primarily because class counsel also represented the individual plaintiffs. The First Circuit rejected these arguments. It first analyzed the text of the settlement emails and held that Wheatleigh got “exactly what it agreed to.” The court then held that counsel’s performance showed no conflict-induced shortfall—each class member recovered more than their total damages suffered, and the average percentage of access for class members (29%) was nearly identical to that of the individual plaintiffs. Furthermore, there were no objections by class members. Court Approves $6.94 Million Settlement for Undisclosed Ten-Cent Vending Machine Card Surcharges Jilek v. Compass Group USA Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00818 (W.D.N.C.) (Jan. 9, 2026). Judge Gibney. Approving $7 million settlement. The Western District of North Carolina approved a class settlement of $6.94 million in a breach of contract suit against Compass Group USA Inc., which owns and operates vending machines across the United States. The plaintiff alleged that Compass engaged in a widespread practice of charging customers’ credit, debit, or prepaid cards 10 cents more than the displayed prices for items sold in its vending machines, without disclosing this extra charge for card use (the machines would charge the as-stated price for cash purchases). The litigation originated in Missouri state court in October 2018 and evolved in various jurisdictions, ending with the operative complaint filed in the Western District of North Carolina in October 2021. The settlement class consisted of all persons who purchased an item from one of these two-tiered vending machines using a credit, debit, or prepaid card in the United States, excluding machines that had cash discount stickers, displayed both cash and credit prices, or featured digital shopping carts that disclosed both prices. Compass agreed to pay $6.94 million into a non-reversionary common settlement fund. Class members who filed valid claims received between $30 and $360 depending on the number of purchases made, with 11 tiers corresponding to purchase ranges. Following
CLASS ACTION & MDL QTR 1 I 2026 Deal at the Table: Casino Workers Win Final Approval of Wage Settlement Mak v. Mount Airy #1 LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00238 (M.D. Pa.) (Feb. 24, 2026). Judge Saporito, Jr. Granting final approval of $2.3 million settlement. Judge Saporito granted final approval of a $2.3 million settlement resolving claims that Mount Airy Casino Resort violated the FLSA and Pennsylvania wage laws by improperly taking a tip credit and underpaying tipped employees. The court certified a class of employees who were paid a direct wage of $7.24 per hour or less during the class period and approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) and the Third Circuit’s Girsh factors, emphasizing the absence of objections and the high percentage of unpaid wages recovered. The court awarded one-third of the settlement fund ($766,666.66) in attorneys’ fees and granted $10,000 service awards to each named plaintiff. Court Rejects 40% Fees Request for Plaintiffs’ Attorneys in FLSA Case Thurlow v. National Inspection Services Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01135 (W.D. Pa.) (Mar. 6, 2026). Judge Wiegand. Approving $530,000 FLSA settlement agreement. Judge Wiegand approved a $530,000 settlement in a lawsuit brought under the FLSA, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The plaintiffs sued National Inspection Services for its alleged failure to accurately track all hours worked, failing to pay all overtime worked, and paying them under a per diem pay scheme that that did not operate as reimbursement for business expenses. Under the original settlement agreement, plaintiffs’ attorneys sought 40% of the proposed settlement fund in fees, but Judge Wiegand found that the requested amount “exceeded the one-third benchmark often approved by courts within the [Third] Circuit” and was “not reasonable.” Under the new settlement agreement, plaintiffs’ attorneys would receive exactly 33.33% of the settlement. From there, Judge Wiegand found that the requested fees were reasonable and approved the settlement (albeit while also noting that “the Third Circuit has not yet held that such approval is required”). n Court Approves Settlement of $42 Million over Alleged Conspiracy to Inflate Real Estate Commissions Gibson v. The National Association of Realtors, No. 4:23-cv-00788 (W.D. Mo.) (Feb. 5, 2026). Judge Bough. Approving $42 million settlement. The Western District of Missouri approved a series of nationwide class action settlements in an antitrust suit against the National Association of Realtors and various real estate brokerage firms. The plaintiffs, individuals who had sold homes, alleged that the association and large real estate brokerage firms entered into an unlawful agreement in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act to artificially inflate the cost of commissions in residential real estate transactions. This litigation is built on related cases that resulted in settlements with large money relief as well as the association agreeing to historic changes in its practices. This specific order involves settlements between the plaintiffs and several defendant brokerage firms. The class is composed of all persons who sold a home listed on a multiple listing service anywhere in the United States if a commission was paid to any brokerage in connection with the sale. The settlement amounts contributed from the five defendants involved in this specific order are undisclosed. In addition to monetary relief, the settlements require the defendants to implement significant practice changes for five years, including (1) advising agents that compensation to buyer brokers is not required; (2) disclosing that commissions are negotiable; (3) prohibiting representations that buyer agent services are “free”; and (4) prohibiting filtering of listings based on compensation levels. The court approved class counsel’s request for attorneys’fees of one-third of the settlement fund, applying the “percentage-of-the-fund method” commonly used in the Eighth Circuit for common fund cases.
Authors CLASS ACTION & MDL Cari K. Dawson +1 404 881 7766 cari.dawson@alston.com David Venderbush +1 212 210 9532 david.venderbush@alston.com Ryan P. Ethridge +1 919 862 2283 ryan.ethridge@alston.com Emma Braden +1 415 243 1013 emma.braden@alston.com James Brehaut-Elms +44 20 8161 4413 james.brehaut-elms@alston.com Nick Brocklesby +44 20 8161 4362 nick.brocklesby@alston.com Samantha Burdick +1 213 576 1190 sam.burdick@alston.com Gillian H. Clow +1 213 576 1054 gillian.clow@alston.com Lauren Funk +1 404 881 7648 lauren.funk@alston.com Bradley Harder +1 404 881 7829 bradley.harder@alston.com Michelle Jackson +1 404 881 7870 michelle.jackson@alston.com Hope Kagan +1 404 881 7370 hope.kagan@alston.com Kara F. Kennedy +1 404 881 4944 kara.kennedy@alston.com Kate Kostel +1 404 881 7765 kate.kostel@alston.com Jyoti Kottamasu +1 404 881 7835 jyoti.kottamasu@alston.com Matthew D. Lawson +1 404 881 4650 matt.lawson@alston.com Emily Leiter +1 404 881 7356 emily.leiter@alston.com Alvaro Montenegro +1 415 243 1065 alvaro.montenegro@alston.com Sarah O’Donohue +1 404 881 4734 sarah.odonohue@alston.com Chandler McCrary Ray +1 404 881 7787 chandler.mccrary.ray@alston.com Gavin Reinke +1 404 881 4828 gavin.reinke@alston.com Andrew A. Roberts +1 404 881 7268 andrew.roberts@alston.com Alex Shattock +44 20 8161 4379 alex.shattock@alston.com Conor Shevlin +44 20 8161 4383 conor.shevlin@alston.com Andrew T. Sumner +1 404 881 7414 andy.sumner@alston.com Nick A. Young +1 919 862 2291 nick.young@alston.com
www.alston.com © ALSTON & BIRD LLP 2026 Atlanta | Brussels | Century City | Charlotte | Chicago | Dallas | London | Los Angeles | New York | Raleigh | San Francisco | Silicon Valley | Washington, D.C.
www.alston.comRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzI4MjIwNg==