McKnight v. Uber Techs., Inc.

Under In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 951 (9th Cir. 2015), there are three factors to consider a class settlement a coupon settlement: “(1) whether class members have ‘to hand over more of their own money before they can take advantage of’ a credit, (2) whether the credit is valid only ‘for select products or services,’ and (3) how much flexibility the credit provides, including whether it expires or is freely transferable.”

Plaintiffs brought a breach of contract and consumer law claims in a class action lawsuit against Uber for misrepresenting its safety measures. After the class action settled, three Objector-Appellants contended that the district court abused its discretion when calculating the fee award. The district court concluded that it erred in determining the settlement is a coupon settlement. On appeal, the Court reviewed the applicability of CAFA’s coupon provisions to a class action settlement under In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015), holding that the settlement was not a coupon settlement within the meaning of the CAFA. The Court considered three factors: “(1) whether class members have ‘to hand over more of their own money before they can take advantage of’ a credit, (2) whether the credit is valid only ‘for select products or services,’ and (3) how much flexibility the credit provides, including whether it expires or is freely transferable.” Id. at 951. The Court reasoned that the class members could claim their reward up-front, the credit could only be used for select products or services, and once the credits expired they could become cash. Therefore, the Court reasoned that factors one and three favor it not being a coupon settlement. AFFIRMED.