StarKist Reaches $12M Class Action Settlement over Underfilled Tuna Cans

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

According to court documents filed Thursday in California federal court, StarKist Co. has agreed to pay $12 million in a class action settlement over allegations it underfilled cans of tuna. The plaintiffs have asked a judge to approve their plan of allocation of funds for the StarKist class action settlement.

The StarKist tuna class action lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Patrick Hendricks in February 2013. He alleges that 5-ounce cans of some of its tuna products contained less tuna than authorized by law. According to his class action lawsuit, federal law requires the cans to contain an average of 2.84 to 3.23 ounces of tuna. However, cans of StarKist tuna allegedly only contain an average of 2.81 to 3.11 ounces of tuna. The StarKist class action lawsuit brought allegations of breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud and violations of California consumer protection laws.

Under the terms of the proposed StarKist class action settlement, Class Members who submit valid claims would be eligible to receive up to $25 in cash or $50 in product vouchers, an amount that could be reduced on a pro rata basis, depending on the number of claims filed. Tens of millions of consumers could be eligible for benefits from the class action settlement.

“This is an excellent result for class members compared to their likely recovery should they prevail at trial,” the plaintiffs argue in their motion for preliminary approval of their plan of allocation for the StarKist tuna class action settlement.

According to the plaintiffs, this proposed payout was reached for a variety of reasons. First, claim rates for settlements involving low-value products are typically too low to exhaust the available settlement funds. Second, they argue, claim rates in settlements with simple claim procedures are much higher than those in which the claim process is more complicated. “With this in mind, we opted for the simplest payout formula – a flat amount,” the plaintiffs state.

The plaintiffs indicate that StarKist sought to have a sliding scale process based on the number of cans of StarKist tuna each Class Member purchased. However, the plaintiffs rejected this proposal during negotiations because it would be overly complex and “because we deemed it unreasonable to ask Class members to recall and report on a claim form the number of cans they had purchased over a 5 ½-year period.”

Consumers also do not typically retain grocery receipts for that length of time, so the plaintiffs argued against requiring proof of purchase during the claim filing process. Instead, claimants would be required to sign an affidavit under the penalty of perjury.

A hearing has been scheduled for May 28.

More information about the StarKist tuna class action settlement was not immediately available. Keep checking TopClassActions.com or sign up for our free newsletter for the latest updates. You can also mark this article as a “Favorite” using your free Top Class Actions account to receive notifications when this article is updated.

The plaintiffs are represented by Scott A. Bursor, Neal J. Deckant, Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Annick Marie Persinger and Sarah N. Westcot of Bursor & Fisher PA.

The StarKist Tuna Class Action Lawsuit is Hendricks v. StarKist Co., Case No. 3:13-cv-00279, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: Claim filing instructions for the StarKist tuna class action settlement are now available! Click here or visit www.TunaLawsuit.com for details.

UPDATE 2: On Feb. 19, 2016, a federal judge denied final approval to the StarKist tuna settlement, calling the deal “unfair” for consumers. A case management conference has been set for March 15, 2016. Top Class Actions will continue to post updates to the case as they’re made available. You can receive these updates by signing up for our free newsletter and/or marking this article as a “Favorite” using your free Top Class Actions account to receive automatic notifications when this article is updated.

UPDATE 3: On Sept. 29, 2016, a California federal judge gave final approval to a revised $12 million class action settlement over allegations StarKist Co. underfilled cans of tuna, causing consumers to overpay for the product.

UPDATE 4: On Oct. 19, 2018, a $12 million StarKist Tuna class action settlement survived the appeals process in the Ninth Circuit, meaning that the settlement can finally move forward.