Notice of PACER Fees Class Action Lawsuit Issued to Class Members

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 website has been established with information about a class action lawsuit that alleges the U.S. government unlawfully charges users of the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system fees that far exceed the costs of providing the records.

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 fees class action lawsuit.

The PACER class action lawsuit was filed in April 2016 by three national nonprofit organizations: National Veterans Legal Services Program, National Consumer Law Center and Alliance for Justice.

“In 2002, Congress recognized that ‘users of PACER are charged fees that are higher than the marginal cost of disseminating the information,’ and sought to ensure that records would instead be ‘freely available to the greatest extent possible,’” the plaintiffs allege in the PACER class action lawsuit.

“To that end, the E-Government Act of 2002 authorizes PACER fees ‘as a charge for services rendered,’ but ‘only to the extent necessary’ ‘to reimburse expenses in providing these services,’” the PACER class action lawsuit says.

The plaintiffs allege that the PACER fees have increased twice since the E-Government Act was implemented. According to the PACER class action lawsuit, these fees were not increased to cover raising costs of providing the services. Instead, the fees imposed to access federal court documents on PACER are allegedly used to fund unrelated projects.

The current PACER fee to access court records is 10 cents per page (up to $3 per record) and $2.40 per audio file, according to the PACER class action lawsuit. There is reportedly no fee required to access judicial opinions. Unless the person or entity gets a fee waiver or incurs less than $15 in PACER fees in a given quarter, the person or entity is under a contractual obligation to pay the PACER fees, the plaintiffs state.

Despite concerns from Congress that the PACER fees might be excessive, the PACER fees continued to increase, according to the PACER fees class action lawsuit. The judiciary reported that it spent $12.1 million on public access services in 2012 and $28.9 million on courtroom technology. The plaintiffs assert that the government continues to collect excessive PACER fees and uses the money to fund activities not associated with providing access to records.

“In 2014, for example, the judiciary collected more than $145 million in fees, much of which was earmarked for other purposes such as courtroom technology, websites for jurors, and bankruptcy notification systems,” the PACER class action lawsuit says.

By filing the PACER class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and a Class of individuals and entities who paid fees for the use of PACER between April 21, 2010 and April 21, 2016, excluding Class Counsel and agencies of the federal government. They are seeking reimbursement of the allegedly excessive PACER fees.

A federal judge granted Class certification to the PACER class action lawsuit in January 2017.

Information about the PACER class action lawsuit is posted at this website: www.PACERFeesClassAction.com.

Class Members who would like to opt out of the PACER lawsuit must do so no later than July 17, 2017.

The Class is represented by Gupta Wessler PLLC and Motley Rice LLC.

The PACER 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: 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.