Plantronics Headphones Settlement Approved by California Judge

A judge has granted final approval of a settlement that ends customer claims that Plantronics headphones did not live up to “battery, battery charging, battery performance, waterproofing, moisture, or sweatproofing” advertisements.

The final approval was granted by U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins, who rejected an earlier settlement deal, but approved this version because it reportedly was fair to the Class.

Judge Cousins previously rejected the settlement deal because he worried that the earlier version did not benefit customers. He thought it seemed like a way for Plantronics to get out of paying a fair settlement to Class Members by paying class attorneys a large sum of fees instead.

Judge Cousins approved the current deal’s proposal of $650,000 in attorneys’ fees, saying the amount was proportionate to the benefits provided to the Class. The judge also expressed approval that no unpaid attorneys’ fees reverted to Plantronics, as support for his belief that the settlement deal was free from collusion.

Additionally, Judge Cousins noted the current settlement determined that the approval of attorneys’ fees would be separate from approval for the settlement.

The previous version of the Plantronics false advertisement class action settlement was also rejected because the judge decided that customers had not sufficiently determined how many Class Members would be in the settlement case. 

Now, however, the judge found that the Class was appropriate, and the settlement deal was fair and reasonable. 

The Plantronics settlement was received positively by the Class, reports the judge. He explained that only one objection was made to the settlement, and the sole objection failed on merit.

Reportedly, the attorneys had put in adequate effort into notifying Class Members about the settlement, noting that the claim rate of around 3.8 percent of the Class is reasonable in this situation.

The Plantronics headphones class action lawsuit was filed by Phil Shin in September 2019. Shin said he purchased a pair of Plantronics BackBeat FIT wireless headphones in March 2015, and alleged the headphones were defective. He argued that they began having problems charging in January 2016, and then stopped working. 

Allegedly, Shin received a new pair under the headphones’ warranty, but experienced the same problem with the replacement. 

Shin argued that the headphones do not live up to Plantronics’ advertisements that they have an eight-hour battery life. He also claimed that the headphones are not waterproof as advertised, saying that they were susceptible to damage by water and sweat, which caused further battery failure. 

Have you used Plantronics headphones? Let us know in the comments below.

Shin is represented by Jeffrey S. Goldenberg of Goldberg Schneider LPA; James C. Shah and Ronald S. Kravitz of Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP; and by W.B. Markovits, Paul M. DeMarco, Terence R. Coates, and Justin C. Walker of Markovitz Stock & DeMarco LLC.

The Plantronics Defective Headphones Class Action Lawsuit is Shin v. Plantronics Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-05626-NC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Dollar Tree Class Action Says Almondmilk Isn’t Made with Vanilla

Facebook Video Ad Class Action Website Is Live

Do I Need a Traumatic Brain Injury Lawyer in Memphis?

N.C. Loomis Overtime Wages Class Action Settlement