The lawsuit alleged that the U.S. government’s actions were tantamount to a violation of law in its demand for these excessive fees. The complaint argued that the fees collected went beyond what was needed to cover the cost to maintain the PACER database and platform and to provide the public with access to records.
The complaint also argued that under the Little Tucker Act, all PACER users should receive a refund for any excessive PACER fees charged to the public. The court eventually granted class certification to all entities and individuals who paid PACER fees from 2010 to 2016, a class that could include hundreds of thousands of users.
In their response, the government claimed they were permitted to charge fees to the extent needed for any project related to providing the public access to documents and information electronically.
However, in 2018 U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle, made a finding on the issue of liability. Judge Huvelle found that the arguments from both sides were unpersuasive, and ruled that the E-Government Act put limits on the implementation of PACER fees, but found that the limits of the Act did not surpass the level that was suggested by the plaintiffs in their complaint.
