FOLLOW US

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.

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.