A federal appeals court has upheld the NYT Auto-Renewal Class Deal, rejecting claims that a $2.375 million settlement resolving allegations against The New York Times Co. was unfair and improperly approved.
In a summary order issued Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit turned aside objections from attorney Eric Alan Isaacson, who argued that the agreement shortchanged nearly 877,000 California subscribers and improperly rewarded class counsel and the lead plaintiff.
The ruling marks the latest chapter in litigation that has wound through the courts for years — a legal tug-of-war over automatic subscription renewals, attorney fees and the fine print of consumer protection law.
Panel Backs District Court’s “Holistic” Review
The panel rejected every challenge raised by Isaacson, including his claim that the approximately $792,000 fee award to Bursor & Fisher PA — roughly one-third of the settlement — was granted as a matter of routine rather than scrutiny.
“The district court made a holistic assessment of reasonableness and applied the correct legal standard” in calculating attorneys’ fees, the panel wrote, concluding there was no abuse of discretion.
U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams properly evaluated the nine fairness factors established by the Second Circuit in its 1974 decision in City of Detroit v. Grinnell, the appellate court said. Among them: the “best possible recovery” available to the class.
Isaacson argued that the lead plaintiff failed to present a concrete number to measure that benchmark. The panel disagreed, noting that the plaintiff provided an estimate the court was entitled to use.
Specifically, the judge considered the plaintiff’s representation that multiplying the number of class members by $4 — roughly the cost of one month’s subscription — could serve as a proxy for maximum potential recovery. The $2.375 million settlement amounts to about 74% of that figure, the panel said.
