A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Recent Supreme Court decision could impact class action lawsuits

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

In some class action lawsuits, the defendant (usually a company or corporation) will offer the main plaintiffs named in the lawsuit full compensation. Why would the defendant do such a thing? In a legal tactic and effort to avoid having to pay all members in a class action lawsuit, the full compensation to the main plaintiff only could automatically end the lawsuit, stopping the class action lawsuit altogether. This tactic worked for some defendants in the past. However, it will no longer work due to a recent Supreme Court decision.

In a mid-January ruling, the Supreme Court announced its decision on this matter of whether or not the defendant can avoid a class action lawsuit by immediately paying off the initially named plaintiffs. The ruling?

No.

Defendants can no longer pay full compensation to plaintiffs to avoid a class action lawsuit. This is an important ruling and win for plaintiffs considering a class action lawsuit as this case is the first of many other cases in the Supreme Court’s docket that could impact future class actions.

The decision came down to a 6-3 ruling, with Justice Ruth Ginsburg writing the majority opinion. Citing back to basic contract law, “An unaccepted settlement offer, like other unaccepted contract offers, creates no lasting right or obligation.” With the dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts believes that such an offer should end the lawsuit.

For those siding with the majority, concerns were raised on how allowing such a tactic would close the door for many plaintiffs who may only be able to have legal recourse through a class action lawsuit.

The continuing impact of the Supreme Court decisions remains to be seen as more cases are yet to be decided.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.