March 8, 2021

Will Your Settlement go Viral and Create a Run on the Bank?

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter


Kevin Skrzysowski

|

March 8, 2021

When assessing financial risk arising out of a class action settlement, companies need to consider whether a proposed settlement is likely to go viral. The four factors below should help guide the analysis: 

  1. Brand Awareness : Well-known, well-recognized consumer brands tend to have statistically higher take rates. Starkist , Redbull and Naked Juice class actions are all examples of leading brands that had settlements go viral. And that’s not a surprise considering these three companies spend millions building brand awareness.  Indeed, digital ads about settlements involving well-known companies garner more attention. This trend plays out repeatedly in class action settlements.

  1. Free Media : When news media reports on a settlement it can amplify the settlement’s chances of going viral. 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 informing members of the public that they were eligible for up to $75. As a result, 1.4 million people visited the settlement website and 634,278 people filed claims, seeking $31,713,900 in payments. The media also spent time reporting on the Starkist and Red Bull settlements and each received more than 2.5 million claims. 

The question is why will the media pay attention to one settlement and not to others? Some factors include: 1) press releases from the parties attracting attention; 2) news stories from promotion sites like Top Class Actions; 3) notoriety of the settlement e.g., Facebook BIPA Settlement was the largest of its kind); 4) notable parties (e.g., Equifax, which suffered the largest data breach in history); 5) large benefit (e.g. the $75 benefit for a $4 product in Naked Juice ); and 6) participation by governmental entities (e.g., DOJ, FCC, FTC).

  1.   Promoter Sites: Many 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. The claims promoters ran stories and provided direct links on the Naked Juice, Starkist and Red Bull settlements. In some settlements, the promotion sites account for more than 90% of all submitted claims. When free media, a well-known brand, and active engagement from the promotion sites are combined, the results can be catastrophic.

  1.   Closed Ecosystem: Some class actions involve a closed ecosystem where class members communicate through social media and encourage each other to participate. This occurred in Electricity Maine , a case pertaining to variable rate electricity costs.  A local Maine news station ran the story about the pending settlement, which led to a spattering of Facebook groups in which filing claims was encouraged. Accordingly, the participation rate in Electricity Maine was multiples higher than substantially similar settlements.

Know What You Are Getting

As part of the settlement analysis, companies should:

  •  assess the likelihood that the case will go viral;
  • perform a quantitative analysis on brand awareness; 
  • consider what factors will garner free media attention; 
  • evaluate the likelihood that the promotion sites will be active on the settlement; 
  • determine if there is likely to be a closed ecosystem that will affect the outcome. 

The answers to these questions will help guide the assessment of whether the proposed settlement might go viral. 

Are you looking to resolve a class action 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.