Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



Walter v. Hughes Communications

| 1 Comment

A class action brought on behalf of California consumers alleging inferior speeds of Hughes Internet service and unfair charges of early termination fees. As most class actions do, this case has settled. Though the parties know who the class members are, there's a burdensome claims process instead of simply writing checks to class members: the parties mail a postcard to class members, the class members enter a claims number from the postcard into a website, and then fill out a claim form. So we have a settlement designed to benefit the attorneys while the defendant gets off cheap: even if 10% of the class makes claims, the attorneys' $630,000 fee will outstrip the class relief. And it's doubtful that 10% of the class will make claims. Ironically, the court had refused to approve an earlier iteration of the settlement, correctly viewing with skepticism an implausible valuation of the injunctive relief. it's hard to see how this settlement is much better.

The settlement class is "All persons and entities residing in the United States of America who, during any time between May 15, 2005 and March 2, 2012, were subscribers to any one of the one of the following satellite broadband internet service plans offered by Hughes: Hughes Home, Pro, Pro Plus, Small Office, Business Internet, Elite, ElitePlus, ElitePremium, Basic, Power 150, or Power 200 (together "Hughes Consumer Service Plans")." (Why do attorneys bringing a class action on behalf of California consumers get to settle on behalf of a national class? You tell me.) The case number is 09-cv-2136 SC (N.D. Cal.).

1 Comment

During the time period mentioned, I had two types of accounts with Hughes. One was a purchased equipment contract. The other, rented. Yesterday, 3 April, 2013, I received two checks for these accounts. I think I will move to Europe on me share. Each check was for the amount of $5.00! That's right, 5 bucks. And the attorneys got...?

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:



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.