February 23, 2021

The Importance of Prohibiting Mass Opt-Outs in Class Action Settlement Agreements

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter

Ross Weiner

|

February 23, 2021

Class action settlement agreements can be long and complicated. But sometimes it’s the simplest provisions—like one prohibiting mass opt-outs—that can pay dividends.

The Backstory

In July 2019, Equifax entered into a $700 million settlement agreement to resolve all consumer litigation arising out of its 2017 data breach, during which the personal information of 147 million people was exposed. Immediately thereafter, a lot of ink was spilled concerning the $125 benefit purportedly available for all consumers, regardless of whether those consumers were actually harmed. But one issue that largely flew under the radar involved the propriety of the settlement agreement’s provision prohibiting mass opt-outs.

Provision Prohibiting Mass Opt-Outs

Under the settlement agreement, to opt-out: “Each written request for exclusion must set forth the name of the individual seeking exclusion, be signed by the individual seeking exclusion, and can only request exclusion for that one individual.”

Class action settlement agreements can be long and complicated.  But sometimes it’s the simplest provisions—like one prohibiting mass opt-outs—that can pay dividends.

Mississippi Lawyer Attempts Mass Opt-Out

One day before the opt-out deadline, a Mississippi lawyer named Jeffrey Hosford sent the settlement administrator, JND Legal a letter listing thousands of individuals purportedly seeking to opt-out.  The letter was signed by only Mr. Hosford.

Two weeks before the final approval hearing, JND filed with the court a list of what it considered the valid opt-out requests.  JND did not include the names of individuals listed on Mr. Hosford’s letter.

The Court Approves the Settlement

In December 2019, the court granted final approval of the settlement, issuing a written order a few weeks later.  The final order barred all class members who had not opted out from “commencing, pursuing, maintaining, enforcing, or prosecuting, either directly or indirectly, any Released Claims in any judicial, administrative, arbitral or other forum.”  It also wholeheartedly approved the provision prohibiting mass opt-outs, finding that it:

  • “is not burdensome at all”;
  • “ensures that each individual has carefully considered his options and understands that he is giving up his right to relief under the settlement”; and
  • combats unauthorized mass opt outs.

But the story does not end here.

Mississippi Lawyer Starts Suing

In late 2019 and early 2020, despite all the above-mentioned developments, Mr. Hosford, on behalf of the “Mississippi Plaintiffs” ( i.e. those individuals for whom Mr. Hosford tried—but failed—to opt-out of the settlement), filed 83 separate cases against Equifax in the Justice Court of Noxubee County, Mississippi.  The complaints raised the same claims resolved in the settlement.  According to Equifax:

Counsel for Equifax have repeatedly told Mr. Hosford…that the Mississippi Plaintiffs’ prosecution of Data Breach-related claims in state court violates the Final Judgment.  Equifax has also filed motions to dismiss in 54 of the state court cases arguing that the Mississippi Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Final Judgment because they failed to properly exclude themselves.

In the state court actions, the Justice Court judge “permitted 31 of the Mississippi Plaintiffs to proceed with non-jury trials after which the judge entered judgments for each Mississippi Plaintiff in the amount of approximately $3,500 (the jurisdictional maximum in Justice Court).”  Equifax appealed them all.  In conversations with Equifax’s counsel, Mr. Hosford informed them that he intended to file over 4,500 additional cases in Justice Court.

Equifax Enforces the Settlement

All of this left Equifax with little choice but to file in the district court an emergency motion to enforce the Final Judgment and for an order to show cause.  Basically, Equifax sought to enforce the Final Judgment by having the District Court issue an order requiring the Mississippi Plaintiffs to dismiss their state court actions with prejudice.  And the District Court agreed.

In a September 16, 2020 ruling, the court found that all the Mississippi Plaintiffs “are Consumer Settlement Class Members who did not exclude themselves from the Settlement .”  Accordingly, the court permanently banned the Mississippi Plaintiffs from pursuing their state court claims and ordered them to dismiss with prejudice all such actions, including those “in which judgments have already been obtained but are on appeal.”

The Lesson

When you are preparing your settlement agreement, it pays to remember that a provision prohibiting mass opt-outs is encouraged and enforceable.

Are you are looking to resolve a class on a claims-made basis? If so, contact us to learn how we can help you to mitigate, cap, and transfer the financial risk of settlements in existing class action litigation.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Certum Group Can Help

Get in touch to start discussing options.

Recent Content

Blurred view through glass of a meeting in a sunlit office.

Certum Publishes Model Brief Against Disclosure of Litigation Funding

By Certum Team • January 12, 2026
Litigation finance has become an essential tool for modern litigation strategy — but with its growth has come a wave of discovery requests seeking information about funding arrangements. These requests are improper, burdensome, and legally unsupported. To help lawyers and litigants push back with confidence, Certum has released a new Model Brief Opposing Discovery of Litigation Funding—a comprehensive, practitioner-oriented document designed to equip litigators with the strongest arguments, cases, and frameworks available. This publication is now available for free download . The Model Brief is part of Certum’s growing library of thought leadership and practical guidance on litigation finance and insurance. That library includes Certum’s Guide to Litigation Funding and its annual survey of in-house counsel . Across federal and state courts, parties continue to seek discovery into litigation funding sources and materials, often as a tactic rather than a legitimate inquiry into claims or defenses. These efforts raise serious issues: Privilege and work-product concerns Chilling effects on access to justice Attempts to shift focus away from the merits Increased litigation costs and delays Yet for many lawyers, responding to these requests requires reinventing the wheel. Certum’s model brief solves that problem. It provides a structured, persuasive, and research-backed response that can be adapted swiftly to any case. Click here to download the brief.

Will Marra Featured in Bloomberg Article About Litigation Finance Disclosure

By Certum Team • January 6, 2026
Bloomberg recently interviewed Certum Group’s William Marra as part of its coverage of efforts by commercial liability insurers to require the disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements. Marra explained to Bloomberg that “[t]he disclosure of litigation funding risks putting impecunious litigants at a systematic disadvantage in our legal system,” adding mandatory disclosure “can disclose to defendants very valuable information, including who has funding, and critically, who does not have funding.” Marra further responded to the argument that litigation funders might fuel frivolous litigation. “To the contrary, the evidence shows that funders serve as a very effective screen, only backing the most meritorious cases, and if anything, likely resulting in fewer weak cases getting filed,” Marra said. This statements builds on arguments Marra previously advantaged in a Vanderbilt Law Review article about litigation funding.  The Bloomberg article is available here .
Blurred view of a business meeting in progress through a glass door. People are seated around a table.

Certum’s Will Marra Elected to ILFA Board of Directors

By Certum Team • December 17, 2025
Certum’s William Marra has been elected to the Board of Directors of the International Legal Finance Association, the litigation finance industry’s leading advocacy group. Will joins five other new members of ILFA’s Board, including: Marcel Wegmüller, the co-founder and CEO of Nivalion; David Perla, the Vice Chair of Burford Capital; Erik Bomans, the CEO of Deminor Recovery Services; Kacey Wolmer, the CEO of Contingency Capital; Rob Rothkopf, the founder and Managing Partner of Balance Legal Capital. “We are honored to welcome Marcel, David, Erik, Kacey, Rob, and William to ILFA’s Board of Directors,” said Paul Kong, the Executive Director of ILFA. “Each brings exceptional expertise, deep industry insight, and a demonstrated commitment to the responsible growth of legal finance. Their leadership will strengthen ILFA’s work to promote transparency, expand access to justice, and support the continued global development of our industry.” “I am delighted to join ILFA’s Board and assist with its important public policy work,” Will Marra said. “Litigation finance helps level the playing field and ensures cases are resolved based on their merits, not the size of a party’s checkbook. LFA’s advocacy for claimholders who need litigation finance is more important now than ever before.” The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate and influence legislative, regulatory and judicial landscapes as the voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world.