In a recent ruling, the Eleventh Circuit rejected a proposed $35 million settlement for a class-action lawsuit accusing Godaddy.com LLC of sending unsolicited marketing texts. The court ruling questions the earlier decision upholding the settlement, citing evidence of alleged collusion between class counsel and Godaddy.com’s legal team. Additionally, the court was critical of the manner in which class members were informed regarding a concurrent case before the US Supreme Court.
As per the allegations, GoDaddy violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a claim that the web hosting company denies. The lower court, however, previously approved the settlement proposal. But Monday’s decision to dismiss this agreement comes after careful scrutiny by the federal appeals court, highlighting key inadequacies in the initial court proceedings.
One of the primary criticisms found in the Eleventh Circuit’s judgement was the purported failure of the lower court to appropriately notify the absent class members about an impending case before the US Supreme Court. The latter’s decision was speculated to be central to the Godaddy.com case; hence, the court chose to highlight the significance of fair public disclosure.
The ruling also showed skepticism towards inaccurate attorney fee calculations, which were a part of the settlement agreement. This was a factor that further emphasized the questionable legitimacy of the proposed resolution.
Further details about this case can be accessed here on Bloomberg Law. Substantial legal proceedings such as these have the potential to set a precedent and drive changes in how future consumer protection cases are treated by the courts. As such, industry professionals should monitor developments closely.