Follow POL on Twitter In the settlement of the questionable Nutella litigation, the attorneys stand to collect approximately $5 million, while class members will eventually end up with less than $2 million once deductions are made from the settlement funds for the cost of notice and administration—assuming that even 400,000 claims are made. The attorneys justify this by claiming that "injunctive relief" is worth $10 million to the class. But the injunctive relief consists of putting information that already existed on the back of the label on the front of the label, minor changes to the Nutella website, and changing the phrase "An example of a tasty yet balanced breakfast" into "Turn a balanced breakfast into a tasty one." Class counsel also justifies this fee from the work entailed in reviewing 53,000 documents and taking two depositions. [Jackson; Jackson; Lammi]
Nutella class action settlement far worse than being reported
3 Comments
Leave a comment
Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.
The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.
Related Entries:
- A win in Dewey v. Volkswagen
- Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley oral argument
- Cobell v. Salazar (D.C. Cir. 2012)
- Evading CAFA's scrutiny of coupons: In re Online DVD Rental
- Breaking: federal Kentucky fen-phen convictions upheld
- Fox Business on class action settlements
- Gallucci v. Boiron
- Cy pres in the appellate courts: In re Lupron and In re Baby Products
- Hans Bader: Ambulance chasers feast on Americans with Disabilities Act claims
- Settlements in Kansas "hot fuel" litigation MDL
- $7M for attorneys, $0.5M for class
- New Featured Discussion:"Class actions: rife with abuse or an important legal safeguard?"
- Around the web, April 11
- "Attorney fee-only" bankruptcy plans
 |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
 |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |
I'm a plaintiffs' lawyer. And I agree with you. We do need some sort of private mechanism to protect consumers. But the way that it is working now is not working.
If this is all true, it's pretty nutty. The fee: $100 per document reviewed? A fairly balanced fee would be "a glass of skim milk, orange juice and Nutella on whole wheat bread." That would be more tasty than the distasteful fee in the works.
Your honor, this is the most egregious case of false statments I've seen since my lawsuit against the makers of "The Neverending Story".