March 12, 2019

Class Action Promotion Sites and Free Media: The Business of Making Claims Go Viral

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter

Dean Gresham

|

March 12, 2019

Class action lawsuits are a much bigger risk today than they were 30 years ago. The internet has completely changed how consumers gain awareness of class action lawsuits and how they file claims for settlement benefits. As a result of these changes, class sizes have grown exponentially.

In years past, known class members received direct notice, via mail, of their right to file a claim. Additionally, claim notices and filing instructions might be posted in one or two relevant print publications. For many consumers, filing a claim was more trouble than it was worth.

Today, scores of websites and social media groups exist for two key purposes: (1) notifying the public of available class action settlement payouts; and (2) providing a quick and easy portal for filing claims. The impact of these sites is undeniable. For example, in one recent case against a supplement manufacturer, of the 44,000 consumers who filed a claim, approximately 41,000 came directly from class action promotion websites.

This article explores (a) the universe of these promotion sites; (b) the risks these sites pose to class action defendants; (c) the impact of free media and (d) whether, notwithstanding these websites, there is any way to minimize the risk of having a class action settlement going viral.

The reality of class action promotion sites is that they wouldn’t exist if they weren’t a successful revenue stream for their owners. And successful they are. The model is simple: the sites advertise “free money,” which promise generates huge online traffic, which induces advertisers to pay top dollar for ad placements guaranteed to reach big audiences. While many of them also claim to be promoting the common good by protecting consumers, they are undeniably generating income through advertising.

Indeed, one need look no further than the “ Advertise with us ” page of one of the top class action promotion sites. It boasts:

Top Class Actions is the #1 source of class action news online. Harness the power of our 5 million+ monthly page views and 705,000+ newsletter subscribers to drive up the number of Class Members who submit settlement claims or potential clients who are looking to participate in a consumer class action lawsuit or mass tort case. (Emphasis in the original.)

Other sites refer to class action payouts as “rebates” and advertise settlement funds on their homepage so they look like coupons that would be clipped from a newspaper. Still other sites purport to advertise class action settlement funds as part of the site owner’s “ passion for finding the best deals, bank promotions, credit card offers, cash back, points & miles, and everything in between.”

If there is one commonality amongst these class action promotion sites, it is that they’re very good at communicating that many class payouts do not require proof of purchase. For example, on the “ Frequently Asked Questions ” page of one popular site, the following questions and answers are presented:

Do I need to prove I purchased these products?

Many settlements require no proof or purchase whatsoever.

Why don’t you need a receipt? Couldn’t anyone file a claim?

This trust based system does open them up to abuse, by people filing fraudulent claims. The legal philosophy that underpins the system is that as the party that wronged consumers, it is better the company bear the cost of these fraudulent claims than to deny the victims their just compensation.

The only reference to the truthfulness of claims is a brief statement that “lying is not cool.” Given this “free money, low risk” atmosphere, it’s no wonder that so many settlement claims go viral.

In addition to claims promotion sites, settlements can go viral as a result of free media. At times, the news picks up the story organically. Often times, the promoter sites generate the media’s interest in a particular settlement. For example, in the Naked Juice settlement, ABC news reported that “Naked Juice fans who bought bottles of the beverage in the last six years could get up to $75 in payments from a $9 million class action settlement fund after plaintiffs questioned the company’s claims of ‘100 percent juice,’ ‘all natural’ and other labeling.” After ABC news ran its story, Huffington Post and others ran similar articles letting class members know that they were eligible for up to $75. As a result, 1.4 million Class Members went to the settlement website and filed 634,278 claims, seeking $31,713,900 in payments. Both Starkist and Redbull had settlements which were picked up by free media and experienced over 2.5 million claims each. In Redbull, the benefit was limited to $10 per household.

It appears these class action promotion sites are here to stay. Indeed, many are making the foray into social media as well. Top Class Actions has a nearly 750,000 person mailing list and 125,000 followers on Facebook alone. Additionally, free media is constantly looking for relevant content. Given the rampant popularity of the class action promotion concept and the thirst for relevant information, is there any way to avoid an onslaught of claims against class funds?

First, hire a notice expert who can design a media plan to meet constitutional due process, provide brand safe messaging and is intended to get the message out clearly to class members. At Risk Settlements, we can assist with this important task as we confront notice issues in every case.

Second, determine if there are appropriate antifraud provisions which can detect waste, fraud and abuse.

Third, empower the third party administrator to validate claims for fraud using customary processes.

Fourth, hedge your bets. Some companies seek risk transfer of known, threatened or pending litigation with solutions such as Class Action Settlement Insurance (“CASI”) or Litigation Buyout (LBO) Insurance (“LBO Insurance”). CASI provides an efficient resolution to expensive litigation at a known cost, mitigating a company’s concern that its settlement could go viral. LBO Insurance coverage is ideal when the company needs to ring-fence exposure due to M&A or other extraordinary business activity.

In this age of free online media and claims promoters, the financial risks and unknowns of class action lawsuits are greater than ever before. Popular brands seem especially vulnerable to viral media that spawn unprecedented take rates. In this climate, class defendants would be wise to seek any solution that could bring some certainty and finality to these inexact circumstances.

Newer Post >

Certum Group Can Help

Get in touch to start discussing options.

Recent Content

Chris Seidl Named to IAM Strategy 300 List of Leading IP Strategists

By Certum Group Team • August 13, 2026
Certum Group is pleased to announce that Chris Seidl has been named to the 2026 IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists list. IAM Strategy 300 is a global ranking of IP strategists who are leaders in developing and implementing strategies to maximize the value of IP portfolios. IAM identifies individuals through extensive research annually. Chris leads Certum’s IP finance strategy, including IP licensing, litigation funding, and acquisitions. This is the fifth consecutive year Chris has been included on the IAM Strategy 300 list.  Click here to see the complete rankings.

How Lawyers Can Use AI Effectively and Responsibly

By Certum Group Team • August 4, 2026
Artificial intelligence is quickly changing how legal work is researched, drafted, reviewed, and delivered. But while AI can improve efficiency, it also creates serious risks, including inaccurate analysis, fabricated citations, and potential court sanctions.  In this webinar, Certum Group brings together legal and business experts to discuss how lawyers can use AI to strengthen their work without compromising accuracy, professional judgment, or accountability.

Tips for Lawyers’ Effective and Responsible Use of AI

By Certum Group Team • July 29, 2026
Artificial intelligence is transforming all corners of the economy, and the legal profession is no different. At first it seemed the stories about AI and the law were all negative, as many lawyers , even those at some of the most prestigious firms , found themselves sanctioned for filing briefs with hallucinated cases. More recently, the news cycle has turned, as existing law firms embrace AI and new firms sprout to deliver AI-first legal services. Just recently, top lawyers from Kirkland & Ellis and Quinn Emanuel each left to launch their own law firms. Meanwhile, Kirkland, the AmLaw 1 firm, announced it would invest $500 million to develop its own proprietary AI system. [ Click here to read a Bloomberg article by Certum’s Will Marra on what Kirkland’s AI announcement means for the future of third-party legal finance.] This can be dizzying for many lawyers. Clients want them to use artificial intelligence. Competitor law firms are using AI. But the risks of misusing AI are high and can even include sanctions and media coverage that gives lie to the old adage that “all news is good news.” A Transformative New Tool To help lawyers navigate this landscape, Certum Group recently hosted a webinar to help lawyers navigate the landscape. Our featured speaker was Michael Showalter , founder of Showalter PLLC, a litigation firm built around AI tools, and a former appellate lawyer at Gibson Dunn and Wiley Rein. The conversation was led by Suneal Bedi , Certum’s Scholar in Residence who is a professor at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business. This was the first in a series of conversations that Professor Bedi will lead designed to help Certum’s clients navigate the toughest challenges they face today. In the webinar, Showalter demonstrated the power of AI by sharing several moments that “blew his mind” over the past year: A first draft of a law review article that was better than what he’d get from most junior lawyers. T urning a project that once took 100–150 hours into roughly only 15. A flawless table of authorities, table of contents, and cite-check on a brief, produced in about ten minutes. He noted he’d never once received a flawless table of authorities from a human paralegal. Sophisticated legal reasoning; identifying an overlooked antecedent argument in a forthcoming Yale Law Journal article showing the tools do real analysis, not just “automatable” formulaic work. He now estimates he accomplishes in a single day what would have taken him 40 hours of work back in 2022. Three key takeaways emerged from the webinar. To Be a Good Lawyer With AI, First Be a Good Lawyer AI cannot replace legal judgment, but it can amplify it. Lawyers should not outsource the job of lawyers to an AI model. They should treat the models instead like highly capable but error-prone junior associates. This means they should ensure the model has sufficient context about the legal issue they’re asking it to address. And you should give senior-lawyer leadership and oversight to its work. You should also treat AI errors as inevitable, the same way junior lawyers will inevitably make mistakes. Be vigilant to when the model gets something wrong, fix the error, and do what you can to avoid the error from recurring in the future. And you should iterate constantly. AI workflows cannot be completed in a single prompt. Lawyers should consistently redline and comment on the AI’s outputs to refine and perfect the work product. Guard Against Hallucinations and Errors Lawyers are rightly concerned about the prospect that AI may rely on fabricated cases. The webinar offered some candid commentary on this issue: First, the technology has changed dramatically between 2024 and 2026. The incidence of hallucinated and fabricated cases is much rarer today than in the past, partly because the frontier labs have focused on addressing this problem. Second, verification tools now exist. Tools like Veritas now exist to compare every quote in a brief against its primary source, catching errors rather than predicting text. Third, senior oversight remains non-negotiable. Lawyers should not assume an AI will accurately describe a case any more than they should assume a junior associate will do so. Lawyers should read and review every case they cite for accuracy and reliability. Meet Your Clients’ Expectations and the Courts’ Requirements Finally, it is clear that the market is shifting towards the expectation that lawyers will use AI. Even the most sophisticated clients are now demanding that their clients use AI. And they are relying on the existence of AI to push down rates and demand that simpler tasks get outsourced to artificial intelligence. For example, Sebastian Niles, the President and Chief Legal Officer of Salesforce, recently published an article arguing that the integration of AI into law firms should be a baseline expectation. [Harvey AI’s CEO, Winston Weinberg, was recently the keynote speaker at an NYU Law School conference co-organized by Professor Bedi and Certum’s Will Marra. Click here to learn more about the takeaways from that conference.] At the same time, courts have stepped in to closely police how law firms are using AI. Some courts are even amending local rules to regulate the use of AI in legal filings. To be a great lawyer today and tomorrow, lawyers need to stay on the cutting edge of artificial intelligence. Clients demand it, and courts do too. Lawyers should continue to educate themselves about how to best use AI to improve and amplify their work, but not to replace it.