StarKist Tuna Settlement Denied for Being “Unfair”

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 judge on Friday refused to grant final approval to a $12 million class action settlement over allegations that StarKist Co. underfills its tuna cans, calling the deal unfair for consumers.

The StarKist tuna settlement was supposed to provide $8 million in cash and $4 million in vouchers redeemable for StarKist tuna products. Individual consumers could claim either a cash payment of $25 or $50 in product vouchers if they purchased 5 oz. cans of StarKist tuna between Feb. 19 2009 and Oct. 31, 2014.

Sounds reasonable, right? Well, it was not the proposed award to consumers that halted the deal, but rather what legal rights they would be giving up if they filed a claim.

In his Feb. 19 Order, U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam said he denied final approval of the StarKist tuna settlement due to an amended “release of claims” that was entered after he preliminarily approved the deal and after class notice was distributed.

The original notice informed Class Members that by submitting a Claim Form, Class Members would give up rights to sue StarKist on “the same legal claims” in this lawsuit, which would be the alleged underfilling of tuna cans.

The amended release, however, specified new claims under federal and state antitrust laws — even though consumers never accused StarKist of conspiring with competitors to underfill its cans.

“The amended release does not track the breadth of allegations in the complaint, instead releasing claims under antitrust laws mentioned nowhere in the complaint,” Judge Gilliam wrote. “That the underlying fact of underfilling could play some part in both this lawsuit and a possible future antitrust action does not compel the conclusion that the two actions are based on an identical factual predicate.”

Gilliam said the amended deal not only too broadly released StarKist from future claims, but also failed to notify Class Members.

“Having not received the amended release, potential Class Members did not have any notice of the rights they are actually giving up with regard to these new claims,” Judge Gilliam wrote. “Under these circumstances, a change in the scope of the settlement’s release constitutes a substantive change in the settlement’s terms and is a change that affects class members’ rights under the agreement. Given that class members did not receive notice of the amended release, the parties cannot establish that Class Members have been informed of the consequences of remaining in the class or opting out.”

Gilliam said that in light of these reservations (all of which were raised by objectors), he could not conclude that the StarKist tuna settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

A case management conference has been set for March 15, 2016 to discuss the future of the StarKist tuna class action lawsuit and proposed settlement.

Top Class Actions will continue to follow the case 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.

The StarKist Tuna Class Action Lawsuit is Hendricks v. StarKist Co., Case No. 13-cv-00729-HSG, 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!