and Santa Clara, is capitalizing on the “extreme imbalance of bargaining power” between the company and its consumers to “obtain a discount on consumers’ restitution claims by settling this action before resolution of governmental enforcement actions.” Their brief argued that Intuit will attempt to use the class action settlement to diminish the value of their cases and those of other regulators that have sued the company. Both the city and the county have brought their own consumer cases against Intuit. So I was more intrigued by the proposed amicus brief from L.A. 13 hearing, after class counsel disclosed the proposed settlement, that it intended to register its opposition to the deal. The firm told Judge Breyer at a hastily convened Nov. The Keller Lenkner motion was no surprise. “As defendants have successfully argued for years, there is no class action exception to FAA,” the brief said. Keller Lenkner also asserted that the settlement’s proposed injunction on individual arbitrations until class members have opted out is a violation of the Federal Arbitration Act. Its brief argued that the proposed settlement disadvantages Keller Lenkner clients by erecting obstacles to opt out of the class action, including a requirement that class members must personally sign opt-out notices even if they are represented by counsel. The mass arbitration firm moved on Monday to intervene in the class case before Judge Breyer. Keller Lenkner contends that the proposed Intuit class action settlement shows the company’s cynicism: Intuit imposed unilateral arbitration clauses and classwide waivers on its customers but when customers actually exercised their arbitration rights, Intuit resorted to a class action to limit its exposure. (Keller Lenkner has paid $8 million.) According to Keller Lenkner, the company is facing AAA deadlines in December and January that put it on the hook for another $23 million in fees. Intuit has accused Keller Lenkner of improper tactics and frivolous filings, but it has already paid $13 million to AAA to cover its share of fees in the first tranche of arbitrations. It also tried and failed to persuade a state-court judge to enjoin individual arbitrations. Intuit tried and failed to push thousands of those cases into small claims court. Tens of thousands of Intuit customers, meanwhile, signed up with the mass arbitration firm Keller Lenkner and filed individual demands for arbitration at the American Arbitration Association. Want more On the Case? Listen to the On the Case podcast. The appellate decision left consumers with virtually no leverage in the class action. Judge Breyer denied Intuit’s motion to compel arbitration last March but the 9th Circuit overturned his ruling in August. (Intuit has denied consumers’ allegations of improper charges, emphasizing that the company “has a long-standing commitment to free tax preparation, including more than 70 million completely free tax returns filed over the last six years.”) The company moved to compel consumers to arbitrate their claims rather than pursue a class action. As I’ve reported, Intuit was hit with consumer suits and regulatory investigations in 2019, after a Politico investigation of Turbo Tax. and Santa Clara brief is a new twist in an incredibly complex case that exemplifies the imbalance of power between consumers and corporations. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco in a brief this week that a proposed $40 million class action settlement with the financial software company Intuit will shortchange consumers who were allegedly duped into paying for tax prep services – and will diminish the government entities’ leverage in their own cases against Intuit. (Reuters) - The city attorney of Los Angeles and the county counsel for Santa Clara, California, told U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |