this article s factual accuracy may be compromised due to out of date information . please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information . february 2013 center for class action fairness industry law founded june 2009 founder ted frank headquarters washington d.c. united states website website the center for class action fairness ccaf is a washington d.c. based public interest law firm founded by ted frank in june 2009 to represent consumers dissatisfied with their counsel in class actions and class action settlements . 1 2 it is a 501 c 3 organization . according to the american lawyer as of march 2011 the ccaf had filed objections to 17 settlements with eight objections pending in federal district courts and had been successful on six of them . the ccaf has objected to settlements throughout the united states particularly in cases where class action lawyers receive cash payments but the plaintiff class receives only discount coupons for further products and services from the defendant company . it has distanced itself from other firms that make money by holding up class action settlements until they themselves are paid off . the ccaf has raised objections to class action settlements involving the grand theft auto hot coffee minigame honda civic hybrids apple backdating a.g. edwards bluetooth headsets and the cobell indian trust . contents 1 background 2 cause 3 notable cases 4 references 5 external links background edit ted frank was inspired to establish the center from his success in objecting to the class action settlement in the grand theft auto consumer fraud case where class members would have received under 30 000 while the attorneys were asking for 1 million . 1 3 4 5 operating largely on donations the ccaf in a short period has gained a reputation as a formidable check on highly questionable practices that have gone unchallenged precisely because they are the product of collusive parties and allied judges . the advent of a committed and aggressive watchdog like ccaf is to those familiar with these scams like sunlight and lysol . karen lee torre of the connecticut law tribune describing the center for class action fairness ccaf . 6 in june 2009 frank founded the public interest non profit law firm center for class action fairness ccaf to represent consumers dissatisfied with their counsel in class actions and class action settlements . 1 2 the firm is described by frank as a guerrilla operation with a shoestring budget . 7 ccaf was initially a project of donors trust a nonprofit donor advised fund which paid him as an independent contractor to manage the project relying on donors from charitable foundations and independent individuals to fund it . 8 9 to date the ccaf has accepted only about 40 percent of the requests it has received to object to a settlement and frank has said that if it is a good settlement or close enough to the line he wouldn t risk creating bad precedent . 8 as of 2010 the ccaf has three staff attorneys including frank . 10 the ccaf has distanced itself from other firms sometimes called professional objectors that make money by holding up class action settlements until they themselves are paid off 11 whereas that practice has been criticized as doing to class action lawyers what class action lawyers are doing to companies one commentator said that ccaf appears to be doing so as a matter of principle . 12 according to the american lawyer as of march 2011 the ccaf had filed objections to 17 settlements with eight objections pending in federal district courts and had been successful on six of them . 9 cause edit founder ted frank has said that the whole reason i started this is because there is a high probability of district courts rubber stamping settlements . i think these are very bad settlements that the 9th u.s. circuit court of appeals will provide guidance for when judges should or shouldn t approve settlements . he has also said the class action landscape has long included some professional settlement objectors who target large cases in hopes of extracting a percentage of the attorney fees as a reward . but that doesn t solve the problem . the niche isn t being filled unless you find somebody crazy like me who is willing to spend dozens of hours of his own time and hundreds of dollars of his own money to make a claim he can t benefit from . 13 frank said in an objection in a case at the court of the united states district court northern district of ohio of the ccaf while the center focuses on bringing objections to unfair class action settlements it makes no effort to engage in quid pro quo settlements to extort attorneys and has never settled an objection . the center analyses complaints from consumers aggrieved by class actions settlement notices to determine whether a settlement is objectionable under the law because it favors attorneys over class members . 14 among ccafs cases are those challenging an emerging trend known as cy pr s. created by american courts in the 1970s as a mechanism to distribute funds to stand in organizations and causes in cases in which it would be impractical to distribute class action settlement funds directly to the entire class of plaintiffs the practice has been criticized from time to time for redirecting funds that would otherwise go to the parties to the case . in one case ccaf challenged a settlement that would have directed 2.5 million out of a total 16.5 million settlement apple inc. was to pay to shareholders for backdating employee stock option grants to unrelated law school programs on corporate governance . 10 according to frank in march 2010 two attorneys from the kabateck brown kellner firm published an op ed in the los angeles daily journal attacking the litigation against impermissible cy pres awards as part of a corporate campaign . 15 frank firmly stated on the manhattan institute run website point of law.com that the center for class action fairness has never taken a dollar of for profit corporate money . 15 even when a lawsuit is plainly meritless it costs defendants a lot of money to have litigators dealing with the case . without a loser pays rule it s cheaper for the defendants to pay trial lawyers protection money to go away . because no one has an incentive to object the settlements get rubber stamped and the trial lawyers go on to file the next extortionate lawsuit . and we all pay higher prices as a result . in other cases the lawsuit has merit but the class lawyers would prefer to maximize their share of the settlement than do what is right for their putative clients they structure the settlement in tricky ways that will minimize the total cost to the defendant while making it seem like their own outsized fees are justified . the defendant just wants the suit to go away as cheaply as possible and doesn t care whether lawyers or consumers get the money . the class notice might be misleading we successfully objected in one case where the notice implied that the class would get 9.5 million thus making the 1.05 million attorney fee seem reasonable when the class in fact got about 117 000 . ccaf hopes to change this by giving consumers another option object with a lawyer standing behind them to explain to a court why the law doesn t permit such an extortionate settlement that fails to benefit consumers . frank on the purpose of the ccaf . 16 ccaf has objected to settlements throughout the united states in cases where class action lawyers receive cash payments but the plaintiff class receives only discount coupons for further products and services from the defendant company . ccaf argues in those cases that few of the coupons are ever used so the actual payment to plaintiffs is much lower than the stated amounts . 12 in 2010 ccaf successfully objected to a coupon settlement in a central district of california class action alleging consumer fraud in the sale of honda civic hybrids ; the settlement would have provided 2.95 million in attorneys fees but only coupons to the class . 17 18 19 frank and the ccaf s position against coupon settlements was expressed in his written objection to the case in which he stated that they often do not provide meaningful compensation to class members they often fail to disgorge ill gotten gains from the defendant and they often require class members to do future business with the defendant in order to receive compensation . 20 notable cases edit the ccaf recently lost its appeal in the online dvd rental antitrust litigation case initially filed in the northern district of california and appealed to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit . the ccaf had objected to the amount of attorneys fees awarded by the district court but the district court judge overruled the objections and awarded the attorneys fees requested . the appeal to the circuit court was met with disfavor and the award of attorneys fees was affirmed . theodore h. frank et al. v. netflix inc. et al. case number 12 15705 in the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit . frank at his own expense traveled to new york and filed a successful objection to the proposed class action settlement in the grand theft auto consumer fraud case where class members who had bought a grand theft auto computer game with a hidden sexually explicit easter egg would have received less than 30 000 while the plaintiffs attorneys would have received 1 million in legal fees . 1 3 4 5 21 spurred by complaints about excessive sexual content in the game class action attorneys sued its makers take two interactive software . although the software giant had received only 27 000 in claims from irate consumers it agreed to a settlement in which the plaintiffs lawyers themselves would collect 1 million . 1 the ccaf s case succeeded and the settlement was halted . 22 in january 2010 the ccaf representing its client dan greenberg successfully filed an objection to the original settlement in the lonardo v. travelers indemnity case in the u.s. district court for the northern district of ohio which reduced the 6.6 million attorneys fee request by 2 million with the class members receiving 4.8 million instead of 2.8 million . 8 23 in february 2010 ccaf successfully objected to a coupon settlement in a central district of california class action alleging consumer fraud in the sale of honda civic hybrids ; the settlement would have provided 2.95 million in attorneys fees but only coupons to the class . 17 19 24 frank was reported to have said coupons are nearly worthless because so few of the intended beneficiaries will find it worthwhile to fill in all the necessary paperwork . 25 the ccaf has also been involved in the case surrounding the allegations of email spamming by ameritrade in 2009 . 7 the case brought frank before northern district of california chief judge vaughn walker where he challenged the fairness of a td ameritrade settlement which consists of coupons for antivirus software . frank argued that the court should not award or should at least limit the requested 1.87 million in attorney fees . 7 judge walker rejected the ameritrade settlement in october 2009 . 26 in these desperate economic times we re looking for ways to stimulate the economy . one cheap way to do so without increasing government debt is to stop making it profitable for trial lawyers to bring meritless cases that impose what is effectively a multibillion dollar litigation tax on productive sectors of the economy . we can t litigate our way to prosperity