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.
Last Thursday, a California federal judge gave final approval to a revised $12 million class action settlement over allegations StarKist Co. underfilled cans of StarKist tuna, causing consumers to overpay for the product.
In February, U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam denied the StarKist tuna settlement after finding the deal was unfair to consumers.
The proposed tuna class action settlement was initially supposed to provide consumers with $8 million in cash and $4 million in vouchers redeemable for StarKist tuna products.
Although the judge found that the compensation offered to Class Members was reasonable, he ultimately decided to reject the StarKist class action settlement due to an amended “release of claims” that was submitted after he had already preliminarily approved the settlement—and after Class Members had already been notified about the deal.
The judge found that the new amendment too broadly released the tuna company from future claims, including antitrust claims that were never at issue in the underfilled tuna can litigation.
On Sept. 29, Judge Haywood found that the parties removed the terms of the tuna class action settlement which provided for an overly broad release of future claims against StarKist and found that the deal warranted final approval.
“Because the parties have removed the language discharging federal and state antitrust claims from the release and because the latest release narrows the scope of claims discharged, there is no longer a risk that Class Members have relinquished rights without knowledge of new claims,” Judge Haywood wrote in his final approval order. “Accordingly, the release no longer poses an obstacle to the fairness, adequacy, or reasonable of the settlement.”
According to court documents, more than 2.5 million Class Members submitted claims for the StarKist tuna settlement.
About 900,000 claimants opted to receive vouchers valued at about $4.40 each, and the remaining claimants opted to receive cash payments estimated to be about $2 per claim.
The StarKist tuna class action lawsuit was filed in 2013 by plaintiff Patrick Hendricks. He claimed that 5-ounce cans of StarKist tuna contained less tuna than allowed under federal law.
The plaintiff alleged that StarKist tuna cans contain only an average of 2.81 to 3.11 ounces of tuna even though federal law requires 5-ounce cans to contain an average of 2.84 to 3.23 ounces of tuna.
The parties agreed to settle the StarKist tuna class action lawsuit in May 2015.
The deadline to file a claim for the StarKist tuna class action settlement passed on Nov. 20, 2015.
Top Class Actions will continue to follow the StarKist tuna settlement and post updates 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.
Class Members are represented by Scott A. Bursor, Neal J. Deckant and L. Timothy Fisher of Bursor & Fisher PA.
The StarKist Tuna Class Action Lawsuit is Patrick Hendricks v. StarKist Co., Case No. 3:13-cv-00729, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
UPDATE: 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.
UPDATE 2: On Sept. 21, 2019, Top Class Actions viewers started receiving checks in the amount of $2.38 or $5.03 in coupons from a StarKist Tuna class action settlement. Congratulations to everyone who filed a claim and got PAID!
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
159 thoughts onRevised $12M StarKist Tuna Class Action Settlement Gets Final OK
WHAAAAT? I was looking forward to the cans of tuna! I don’t understand this bait and switch.
Who the heck got the rest of our settlement? Where is Charlie when you really need him?
What happened to the original settlement?
This really is proof that the justice system sucks!!! I also sign up for the original settlement of $ 50.00 in vouchers or $25.00 cash. Did they all of a sudden decide only the lawyers get the money out of this…sounds about right! And the rest of us can just be screwed over a second time! NOT HAPPY AT ALL!!!
I guess the attorneys got the $25 and/or $50 and we get $2 or $4? What a crock!!!
After thinking about it, it’s probably the number of claims against the total judgement. No receipts were required and it made national news. I bet a lot of false claims went through.
Well, this Judge is about an idiot.
If you are Judge Haywood S. Gilliam make sure that the lawyers are paid with vouchers.
Wth. This is crap.
Ditto. Way less than previously stated.
I am in shock and disappointed too. I didn’t opt for the cash but for the tuna itself. We eat a lot of tuna in our house and if we would have done someone this wrong it would have been treated differently. Just another way to scam the public.
I must have missed something !
The original settlement was $ 50.00 in vouchers or $25.00 cash. And that was considered “unfair” to consumers .
The new settlement is $4.40 in vouchers or $2.00 in cash and that is considered “fairer” to the consumer ?
Someone please explain .
Ummm yes, I thought it was 50 in vouchers or 25 cash! How is this offer better?? This offer is way worse!!!
I heard the same thing. $2 ain’t $25 and $4.40 ain’t $50.
I agree that is crap. i filed against them too, what a huge difference We all know no matter what money talks, bull**** walks. Well I am truly dissapointed
agree it is not what started out in settlement but now lower.? Shame that its not higher for having everyone waiting longer.
i thought it was the $25 also when did that change ? shouldnt we have been notified of the change ?
this offer isnt as good as the other one.
I agree it was supposed to be $25.00 cash and 50 vouchers.g
Im sorry ,that’s just sad as consumers we get cheated all the time and was 25:00 and 50:00 vouchers more water then tuna it took five can to make a decent meal
It says the voucher is valued at $4.40, not that each person gets only 1 voucher
I agree with you. I think we should find out how many vouchers we get before getting mad about it.
The reason why the judge ruled against the original settlement was because an amendment was snuck in after everyone filed that sought prevent them from being sued for other current and future misconduct including but not limited to anti-trust lawsuits such as price fixing.