11th Circuit Upholds Duracell $50M Class Action Settlement

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 $50 million class action settlement to resolve claims about the battery life of Duracell batteries was upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded that the lower court had not abuse its discretion when approving the deal.

Those who had objected to the terms of the Duracell class action settlement reached with Gillette and parent company Procter & Gamble Co. said that it gave too much to the attorneys and not enough relief for the Class Members.

However, the appellate court disagreed.

“The district court did not use the wrong legal standards, apply our precedents unreasonably or incorrectly, follow improper procedures, or make clearly erroneous findings of fact in deciding that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate,” the three judge panel wrote.

The Duracell class action settlement reached with Gillette and Procter & Gamble gave 7.2 million Class Members $3 per AA- or AAA size battery pack purchased after June 2009. Class Members could receive relief for four battery packs if they had proof of purchase and they could receive two battery packs if they didn’t.

The appellate court said that the amount given to Class Members under the terms of the class action settlement was fair and reasonable.

“Indeed, the $6 that could be claimed without proof of purchase exceeded the damages that an average class member would have received if the class had prevailed at trial,” the judges explained.

They also concluded that the $5.7 million in attorneys’ fees approved by the federal judge was not too much and that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in approving the amount.

“Given the district court’s settlement valuation, which we conclude from the record is not clearly erroneous, we hold that the district court’s approval of class counsel’s fees-and-costs award was not an abuse of discretion,” the appellate court added.

The Duracell class action settlement was originally objected by Class Members Theodore H. Frank in February 2014, who argued that the attorneys representing the class benefited at the expense of the class and that the non-monetary benefits in the deal were flimsy. There were other objections filed as well that were consolidated together.

Duracell class action lawsuits were filed in both Florida and California, alleging that Duracell batteries were no better than lower-priced batteries, but that they paid a premium price for them because the companies had advertised the batteries as being better and longer lasting than other brands.

Under the terms of the class action settlement, $6 million in batteries were donated to charities over five years.

Class Members asked the court to grant final approval to the deal in April 2014. 

Circuit Judges Adalberto Jordan and Joel F. Dubina and U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Richard W. Goldberg, sitting by designation, sat on the panel for the Eleventh Circuit.

The appealing parties are represented by Adam E. Schulman of the Center for Class Action Fairness, Christopher A. Bandas of Bandas Law Firm PC, Brian Mark Silverio of Silverio & Hall PA, John Jacob Pentz III, Wanda J. Cochran and Sam P. Cannata.

The plaintiffs are represented by E. Clayton Lowe Jr. of Lowe Law Firm LLC, Dennis G. Pantazis Sr. and Joshua R. Gale of Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb LLC, Peter A. Grammas of the Law Office of Peter A. Grammas and Noah Schubert and Robert C. Schubert of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP.

Gillette and P&G are represented by Craig E. Stewart, Darren K. Cottriel, Jason McDonell and Robert A. Mittelstaedt of Jones Day and David Matthew Allen, Johanna W. Clark and Jason Andrew Perkins of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA.

The Duracell Class Action Lawsuit is Christopher Batman et al. v. the Gillette Co. et al., Case No. 14-13882, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.