b'Page 10FBA/OC Pitfalls in Class Settlements cuits lead in requiring some form of electronic (Continued from page 1)noticeinadditiontoorinlieuoftraditional forms of notice.23(b)(3) classes,there are severalother settle-ment provisions to which courts have begun toPartiesshouldthereforeconsideraddingone pay closer attention.Understanding these classor more forms of electronic notice to their no-action settlement pitfalls can be key to gettingtice schemes to provide the best notice that is your class action settlement approved. practicable . . . . Courts Are Starting to Require Some FormThe Class Representative Must Have Arti-of Electronic Notice to Class Members: cle III Standing:WhilesomeformofelectronicnoticesuchasInMarch2019,theUnitedStatesSupreme email,digitaladcampaigns,orsocialmediaCourt made clear that a federal court cannot postings,hasbecomeincreasinglycommoninapproveaclassactionsettlementwherethe classactionsettlements,arecentnamedplaintifflacksArticleIII NinthCircuitopinion,Roes1-2v.[E]lectronicnoticestanding. 3 InFrankv.Gaos ,the SFBSCManagement,LLC ,sug- may not only benamedPlaintiffschallengedGoogles gests that electronic notice may notan approvedpractice of sharing users search terms only be an approved notice methodnotice method butwiththird-partywebsites.Thepar-butpotentiallyarequiredone . 1tiesreachedaclasssettlementthat Rule 23 requires that notice to (b) potentially awasapprovedbytheDistrictCourt (3) class members be the best no- required one. and upheld by the Ninth Circuit.The ticethatispracticableundertheUnitedStateschallengedthesettle-circumstances.Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ment through an amicus brief alleging (c)(2)(b).InDecember2018,theRulewasthat the class representative lacked Article III amended to explicitly recognize electronic noticestanding.Ultimately, the Supreme Court re-as one of the forms of notice that may be appro- versed and remanded the order approving the priate under the circumstances.classsettlementbecausetheDistrictCourt failed to evaluate the issue of standing.In do-InRoes1-2v.SFBSCManagement,LLC ,theing so, the Supreme Court made clear that a Ninth Circuit reversed approval of a class actioncourt is powerless to approve a proposed class settlement in part because it found that mailedsettlement if it lacks jurisdiction over the dis-noticesandpostersinDefendantsclubswerepute. 4notthebestnoticepracticable. 2 TheCourt statedtherewerenumerousotherreasonableForclassactionsinvolvingconsumerprotec-options for notice, including email, social media,tionstatutes,defendantssometimesagreeto and online message boards.The court went onclass settlements with plaintiffs with question-tonotethattechnologicaldevelopmentsareableclaimstomitigatetheriskofpotential making it ever easier to target communicationsliability associated with large statutory penal-to specific persons or groups and to contact indi- ties. Frank v. Gaosdictates that the parties viduals electronically at little cost.Given theshould know whether the class representative publics increased reliance on social media andsuffered a concrete injury under Article III as the internet for news and information, it is like- a result of the statutory violation before seek-lythatmorecourtswillfollowtheNinthCir- (Continued on page 11)'