PACER Excessive Fees Class Action Lawsuit Granted Certification

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.

A federal lawsuit filed by three nonprofit groups challenging the alleged excessive fees charged by PACER, the federal courts’ electronic records system, has been granted class certification.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle approved a Class of “[a]ll individuals and entities who have paid fees for the use of PACER within the past six years.”

The class action lawsuit, brought by the National Veterans Legal Services Program, National Consumer Law Center and the Alliance For Justice, claims that PACER’s fee schedule is higher than necessary to cover the costs of operating PACER and therefore violates the E-Government Act of 2002, which allows the federal judiciary to charge fees for PACER that are reasonable and “only to the extent necessary.”

Judge Huvelle found that the lawsuit meets the requirements for class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

“In fact, the nonprofit organizations who are named plaintiffs in this case make particularly good class representatives,” Judge Segal Huvelle wrote. “They are interested in reducing PACER fees not only for themselves but also for their constituents. As nonprofit organizations, named plaintiffs exist to advocate for consumers, veterans and other public-interest causes.”

The three nonprofit groups filed the lawsuit in April, claiming the fees charged by Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to access PACER records are excessive and illegal under the E-Government Act.

Specifically, the nonprofit groups allege that the 10-cents-per-page download fee, capping out at $3, is much higher that the actual cost of providing public records, and may prevent access to important court records.

Although Congress, through the E-Government Act, intends for PACER fees to cover its necessary operating costs, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts uses the funds to pay for courtroom technology, websites for jurors and other judiciary public access offerings, according to the complaint.

Indeed, the lawsuit states that in 2012, the administrative office spent $12.1 million of PACER revenues on PACER itself, and more than $29 million on courtroom technology.

The nonprofit groups further point out that PACER fees have increased twice since 2001. It’s also alleged that the PACER service center has used private collection agencies to sue people who owed them money.

According to the nonprofit groups, the Little Tucker Act entitles PACER users to a refund of these excessive fees.

In December, Judge Huvelle rejected the government’s bid to dismiss the case, ruling that the lawsuit addresses separate allegations than those detailed in PACER’s user agreement or that were argued in another lawsuit.

The government had objected to the nonprofit groups’ complaint on two grounds: first, that a similar, but slightly different case, had also been filed (Fisher v. the United States), and second, that the lawsuit failed to state a claim, because the groups failed to first complain to the PACER operators.

But Judge Huvelle was not persuaded and noted that the two cases were innately different. The nonprofit groups’ case hinges on the excessive fees PACER reportedly charges which violate the law while the Fisher case centers on PACER overcharging people for just looking at a document, the judge stated.

A similar lawsuit was brought against PACER in November by plaintiff Theodore D’Apuzzo on behalf of a proposed Class of PACER users who, during the last six years, paid to access a judicial opinion document.

D’Apuzzo’s complaint challenges the legality of the fees PACER charges to access judicial records, claiming PACER contradicts its own Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule. He cites the following statement from PACER’s site: “No fee is charged for access to judicial opinions,” arguing that it clearly implies that users should not be charged to access judicial opinions.

The nonprofit groups are represented by Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler PLLC, and William H. Narwold and Elizabeth S. Smith, Meghan S.B. Oliver and William P. Tinkler of Motley Rice LLC.

The PACER Excessive Fees Class Action Lawsuit is National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al. v. United States of America, Case No. 1:16-cv-00745, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

UPDATE: May 2017, a website has been established with information about the PACER excessive fees class action lawsuit. If you paid fees to access federal court records on PACER from April 21, 2010 to April 21, 2016, your rights may be affected by the PACER lawsuit. Visit PACERFeesClassAction.com for more information. 

UPDATE 2: On Aug. 13, 2018, users of the federal courts’ electronic records system, PACER, have been granted an appeal allowing them to move forward with their class action lawsuit claiming that the system charges excessive fees, and then the government misuses those fees.