Incentive Award and Standing Challenge Rejected
Lead plaintiff Maribel Moses is set to receive a $5,000 service award. Isaacson contended that amount was inequitable given that other class members are expected to receive about $2.71 each.
But the appeals court held that Judge Abrams acted within her discretion in approving the incentive, citing Moses’ contributions to the case and the broader landscape of similarly sized awards.
Moses first sued the Times in 2020, alleging violations of California’s 2009 Automatic Renewal Law. She claimed the newspaper failed to clearly disclose renewal terms, did not obtain her affirmative consent before charging her, and did not provide adequate cancellation instructions.
The case initially settled in 2021 for $3.9 million in consumer access codes and $1.25 million in attorney fees. But that agreement unraveled after the Second Circuit sided with Isaacson’s earlier objection, determining that the access codes constituted “coupons” under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. That classification subjected attorney fee calculations to a stricter standard.
The revised April 2024 agreement — the one now upheld — shifted to a cash-based structure.
Isaacson and another class member also argued that Moses lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief because her alleged injuries occurred roughly four years before the new settlement, and there was no likelihood she would face future harm.
The panel, however, agreed with the lower court that the settlement’s “practice changes” provision did not constitute injunctive relief. By the time of the agreement, the Times had already revised its automatic renewal language to comply with California law.
In a brief to the appeals court, Moses said the Times “did not implement those changes in connection with, or in response to, the renewed settlement agreement currently under review.” The newspaper countered that the revisions stemmed from the earlier, vacated settlement.
