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.

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.