T-Mobile class action plaintiffs slash legal fee bid to $46 million
By Mike Scarcella
Sept 11 (Reuters) -Lawyers who represented T-Mobile customers in a $350 million class action settlement have asked a U.S. judge to award them $46 million in legal fees after a federal appeals court struck down their earlier bid for nearly twice the amount.
The attorneys in a filing on Tuesday night in Missouri federal court said $46 million was justified following a decision in July by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found the original $78 million award to be a “windfall.”
The lawyers said approval of the reduced amount would minimize any further delay and help get money into the hands of class members who accused T-Mobile of a data security breach.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and neither did two attorneys who opposed the original fee bid.
T-Mobile also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The company did not oppose the original $78 million fee award.
T-Mobile in 2022 settled the consumer privacy case for $350 million, and also said it would spend an additional $150 million on upgraded security efforts. It denied any wrongdoing.
The settlement resolved privacy claims from an estimated 76 million T-Mobile customers whose personal information was compromised in a cyber breach.
In July, the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit Court in a 3-0 ruling said the attorneys' initial fee award was too high based on the hours of legal work they spent on the case.
The panel said reducing the fee amount by half — to about $39 million — would not harm the class attorneys because their hourly rate would work out to $3,500 to $4,750.
The class lawyers said the requested amount of nearly $46 million amounted to 13.08% of the $350 million cash fund. That percentage, they said, is lower than recent data breach settlements involving Equifax, Yahoo! And health insurer Anthem.
The attorneys argued their request was "reasonable by any metric."
The case is In re: T-Mobile Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, No. 4:21-md-03019-BCW.
For plaintiffs: Norman Siegel of Stueve Siegel Hanson; Cari Campen Laufenberg of Keller Rohrback; and James Pizzirusso of Hausfeld
For T-Mobile: Kristy McAlister Brown and Donald Houser of Alston & Bird
Read more:
US appeals court tosses ‘windfall’ $78 mln legal fee in T-Mobile lawsuit
Lawyers fight over $78 mln fee bid in T-Mobile data breach settlement
T-Mobile to pay $350 mln in settlement over massive hacking
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
