March 12, 2019

Class Action Promotion Sites and Free Media: The Business of Making Claims Go Viral

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter


Dean Gresham

|

March 12, 2019

Class action lawsuits are a much bigger risk today than they were 30 years ago. The internet has completely changed how consumers gain awareness of class action lawsuits and how they file claims for settlement benefits. As a result of these changes, class sizes have grown exponentially.

In years past, known class members received direct notice, via mail, of their right to file a claim. Additionally, claim notices and filing instructions might be posted in one or two relevant print publications. For many consumers, filing a claim was more trouble than it was worth.

Today, scores of websites and social media groups exist for two key purposes: (1) notifying the public of available class action settlement payouts; and (2) providing a quick and easy portal for filing claims. The impact of these sites is undeniable. For example, in one recent case against a supplement manufacturer, of the 44,000 consumers who filed a claim, approximately 41,000 came directly from class action promotion websites.

This article explores (a) the universe of these promotion sites; (b) the risks these sites pose to class action defendants; (c) the impact of free media and (d) whether, notwithstanding these websites, there is any way to minimize the risk of having a class action settlement going viral.

The reality of class action promotion sites is that they wouldn’t exist if they weren’t a successful revenue stream for their owners. And successful they are. The model is simple: the sites advertise “free money,” which promise generates huge online traffic, which induces advertisers to pay top dollar for ad placements guaranteed to reach big audiences. While many of them also claim to be promoting the common good by protecting consumers, they are undeniably generating income through advertising.

Indeed, one need look no further than the “ Advertise with us ” page of one of the top class action promotion sites. It boasts:

Top Class Actions is the #1 source of class action news online. Harness the power of our 5 million+ monthly page views and 705,000+ newsletter subscribers to drive up the number of Class Members who submit settlement claims or potential clients who are looking to participate in a consumer class action lawsuit or mass tort case. (Emphasis in the original.)

Other sites refer to class action payouts as “rebates” and advertise settlement funds on their homepage so they look like coupons that would be clipped from a newspaper. Still other sites purport to advertise class action settlement funds as part of the site owner’s “ passion for finding the best deals , bank promotions, credit card offers, cash back, points & miles, and everything in between.”

If there is one commonality amongst these class action promotion sites, it is that they’re very good at communicating that many class payouts do not require proof of purchase. For example, on the “ Frequently Asked Questions ” page of one popular site, the following questions and answers are presented:

Do I need to prove I purchased these products?

Many settlements require no proof or purchase whatsoever.

Why don’t you need a receipt? Couldn’t anyone file a claim?

This trust based system does open them up to abuse, by people filing fraudulent claims. The legal philosophy that underpins the system is that as the party that wronged consumers, it is better the company bear the cost of these fraudulent claims than to deny the victims their just compensation.

The only reference to the truthfulness of claims is a brief statement that “lying is not cool.” Given this “free money, low risk” atmosphere, it’s no wonder that so many settlement claims go viral.

In addition to claims promotion sites, settlements can go viral as a result of free media. At times, the news picks up the story organically. Often times, the promoter sites generate the media’s interest in a particular settlement. For example, in the Naked Juice settlement, ABC news reported that “Naked Juice fans who bought bottles of the beverage in the last six years could get up to $75 in payments from a $9 million class action settlement fund after plaintiffs questioned the company’s claims of ‘100 percent juice,’ ‘all natural’ and other labeling.” After ABC news ran its story, Huffington Post and others ran similar articles letting class members know that they were eligible for up to $75. As a result, 1.4 million Class Members went to the settlement website and filed 634,278 claims, seeking $31,713,900 in payments. Both Starkist and Redbull had settlements which were picked up by free media and experienced over 2.5 million claims each. In Redbull, the benefit was limited to $10 per household.

It appears these class action promotion sites are here to stay. Indeed, many are making the foray into social media as well. Top Class Actions has a nearly 750,000 person mailing list and 125,000 followers on Facebook alone. Additionally, free media is constantly looking for relevant content. Given the rampant popularity of the class action promotion concept and the thirst for relevant information, is there any way to avoid an onslaught of claims against class funds?

First, hire a notice expert who can design a media plan to meet constitutional due process, provide brand safe messaging and is intended to get the message out clearly to class members. At Risk Settlements, we can assist with this important task as we confront notice issues in every case.

Second, determine if there are appropriate antifraud provisions which can detect waste, fraud and abuse.

Third, empower the third party administrator to validate claims for fraud using customary processes.

Fourth, hedge your bets. Some companies seek risk transfer of known, threatened or pending litigation with solutions such as Class Action Settlement Insurance (“CASI”) or Litigation Buyout (LBO) Insurance (“LBO Insurance”). CASI provides an efficient resolution to expensive litigation at a known cost, mitigating a company’s concern that its settlement could go viral. LBO Insurance coverage is ideal when the company needs to ring-fence exposure due to M&A or other extraordinary business activity.

In this age of free online media and claims promoters, the financial risks and unknowns of class action lawsuits are greater than ever before. Popular brands seem especially vulnerable to viral media that spawn unprecedented take rates. In this climate, class defendants would be wise to seek any solution that could bring some certainty and finality to these inexact circumstances.

Certum Group Can Help

Get in touch to start discussing options.

Recent Content

People in a meeting room, sitting around a table, brainstorming. Glass wall reflects outside.
By Certum Group Team December 4, 2025
Certum Group, a leader in litigation risk management, is pleased to announce the launch of Certum Legal Solutions (CLS), a managed services organization (MSO) that helps law firms handle their day-to-day operations. CLS expands Certum Group’s platform beyond litigation finance and insurance into technology-driven operational support for law firms. With this launch, Certum is now the only provider to offer funding, insurance, and operational services through a single, integrated platform. Built by trial lawyers and experienced legal operations professionals, CLS delivers end-to-end support for mass tort and single-event litigation practices, including intake, pre-litigation investigation, plaintiff discovery support, settlement claims processing, and client communications. The CLS platform leverages proprietary and heavily customized tools such as integrations for rapid medical record collection, a mobile client app, automated document workflows, electronic signature systems, and an in house call center to streamline case management and boost efficiency. CLS currently manages thousands of cases for law firm clients across the United States and is designed to scale quickly to meet changing caseloads while maintaining control and delivering a consistent client experience. “Our clients have long relied on Certum to mitigate litigation risk and financial risk; with Certum Legal Solutions, we can now mitigate operational risk as well,” added David Diamond, Managing Director at Certum Group. “Because CLS is built the way trial lawyers think about building cases, from intake to resolution, firms get a turnkey, technology forward solution that measurably improves efficiency and outcomes,” said Asim M. Badaruzzaman, CEO of Certum Legal Solutions. CLS originated from a services operation launched in 2024 and was acquired by Certum Group in 2025. The new business line uses a customized fee for service model that aligns pricing with the scope and value of each engagement, allowing firms to avoid the capital costs and staffing requirements of building these capabilities themselves. While the initial focus is on mass tort and single event, Certum plans to extend CLS capabilities to additional practice areas over time, further expanding the company’s comprehensive approach to funding, insurance, and operational support. For more information, please contact: David Diamond Managing Director, Certum Group ddiamond@certumgroup.com Asim M. Badaruzzaman CEO, Certum Legal Solutions asim.badaruzzaman@certumlegalsolutions.com
A gavel rests on top of a stack of US one-hundred dollar bills.
By Kirstine Rogers November 6, 2025
The recent legislative push—then retreat—to impose a tax on litigation funding returns didn’t change the law, but it clarified what’s at stake. It shined a spotlight on the solution that litigation funding provides for the legal industry and to intellectual property owners. Litigation finance doesn’t present a taxation loophole to close. It’s a process that allows plaintiffs with strong claims—and limited resources—to make it to the courthouse steps. In the IP world, where the costs of litigation can eclipse the means of most inventors, startups, and universities, non-recourse litigation funding often is the only way to level the playing field. The investment risks for funders are high; the returns shouldn’t be penalized. The right policy response isn’t punitive taxation or blanket disclosure of sensitive funding terms, but acceptance of funding as a necessary tool and tailored transparency under the court’s supervision, so that financial disparity doesn’t become a tactical weapon.  The goal is simple: Keep the courthouse doors open while maintaining fairness and integrity in the adversarial system.
Statue of Lady Justice holding scales and sword, blindfolded.
By W. Tyler Perry October 23, 2025
It feels like every couple of weeks an article appears lamenting the rise of litigation finance as the death of capitalism and the birth of something monstrous. The most recent chorus began over the summer when the CEO of Chubb called litigation finance “ a hidden tax on society ” in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. A month later, the CEO of The Hartford grieved on an investor call that litigation finance has “turned our judicial system into a gambling system.” And just last month, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association ’s Senior Vice President of Federal Government Relations exclaimed: “Too many baseless claims, filed by lawyers motivated by profit are clogging our legal system with unnecessary lawsuits, increasing costs and delaying swift resolution of genuine legal claims.”  As someone who has been a big firm defense lawyer, a small firm plaintiff lawyer, and now a litigation funder, I can confidently say that these arguments fundamentally misunderstand litigation finance and its incentives, while simultaneously conflating the interests of large repeat defendants with those of society writ large.