August 14, 2023

The Increasing Danger of Fraudulent Claims in Class Action Settlements

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter

Ross Weiner

|

August 14, 2023

In 2019, my colleague, Kevin Skrzysowski, wrote on this site about the risks of a consumer product class action settlement going viral. At that time, he was describing how feeder websites, social media, and the internet were all contributing to increasing take rates.

Now, nearly four years later, there is a new insidious trend affecting consumer product class action settlements: fraudulent claims on a heretofore unseen level. Following are three recent class action settlements that were impacted by fraudulent claims and describe one third-party administrator’s prescription for remedying this risk.

In January 2019, plaintiff Steve Hesse sued Godiva Chocolatier over its line of products bearing “Belgium 1926” on the label. According to Hesse, that label was deceptive because Godiva Chocolates are not made in Belgium (the chocolate capital of the world); rather, they are made in Reading, Penn.

After years of litigating, the parties agreed on a $15 million claims-made settlement. Consumers who submitted a claim with proof of purchase were entitled to $1.25 per product, up to a maximum of $25. Those who submitted a claim without proof of purchase were entitled to $1.25 per product, up to a maximum of $15.

So far, a pretty unremarkable settlement. But then the claims started pouring in. In plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the settlement, the settlement administrator filed a declaration stating that while there had been 827,676 claims, an incredible 317,723 of them (38%) were “not valid.” This number was startling enough. But the story does not end there.

The administrator informed the court that, on its own volition, it “continued to review approved claims to ensure that they were valid.” It turns out: they weren’t. The administrator “discovered that a bot stemming from a foreign country had been used to manufacture fraudulent claims.” And it acknowledged discovering this defect “because this same type of fraud …had occurred in another settlement it was administering.”

After further review, the administrator determined that an additional 74,273 claims were invalid, meaning that at the end of the day, 47% of all filed claims were fraudulent.

Two individuals sued Celsius Holdings, Inc. in 2021, alleging that its Celsius Live Fit drinks were mislabeled as “No Preservatives” when, in actuality, they contained the preservative citric acid. In late 2022, the parties announced a $7.8 million non-reversionary settlement, through which those who submitted a claim with proof of purchase would be capped at $250, while those who submitted a claim without proof of purchase would be entitled to up to $1 for every can (so a 12 pack would be worth up to $12) and up to $5 for every 14-unit package of powdered drinks, capped at a maximum of $20. While the $250-with-proof benefit was higher than average for a consumer product settlement, the $20-without-proof benefit was in no way remarkable. But what happened next was.

After a 60-day-claims-period, there were 1,774,900 claims: a staggering figure. Yet, of those claims, 209,642 were duplicates, while 658,719 were invalid, which the settlement administrator defined as “multiple claims from a single internet protocol address,” “claims from known fraudulent email domains, claims that appear to be unrelated to each other with a request to be paid using the same digital payment account information, and claims with outlier product quantities that have deficient or suspect documentation.” This left only 906,539 valid claims, meaning a full 49% of submitted claims were fraudulent.

The third settlement to discuss involved the King of Beers, Anheuser-Busch (A-B). Except this lawsuit did not concern beer; rather, it was about A-B’s “Ritas” brand Margarita, Sprits, and Fizz products. According to the named plaintiff, these canned cocktails evoked drinks traditionally made with distilled spirits or wine, but allegedly, the Ritas brand of products contained neither.

In July 2022, the parties agreed to an uncapped settlement, through which those who submitted a claim with proof of purchase would receive a maximum of $21.25, while those who submitted a claim without proof of purchase would receive a refund of up to $9.75. Two days before the claim period ended, the settlement administrator reported having received 784,534 claim forms.

The settlement administrator, however, noted that it had detected “unusual claim filing activity,” which led it to conduct an “extensive investigation into the filing of potentially invalid [c]laims.” In the final report to the court before the settlement was approved, the settlement administrator noted that this extensive investigation had uncovered 33,771 invalid claims out of the 269,944 it had reviewed (12.5%).

One settlement administrator active in the consumer product class action space was willing to speak on background about what he’s seeing. Top of mind for him was the incredible influx of fraudulent claims and what a strain it puts on the settlement administration process. He noted that while individuals lying in claim forms to obtain “no proof” benefits have always been a problem, the newest iteration of fraud, including sophisticated bots, is much harder to fight. And he said that there is a lot of discussion among administrators about how best to combat this phenomenon. Because most administrators charge on a per filed claim basis, the more fraudulent claims there are, the more expensive administration becomes for the parties. Accordingly, it has become imperative to try to create claim filing processes that discourage the scammers and stop the fraudulent claims before they cross the transom.

But for those fraudulent claims that are submitted, all hope is not lost. According to the administrator, there are anti-fraud devices that help stem the damage. Any time you can require claimants to provide a physical address or email address, instead of just a mobile phone number, the better off you will be.

While the administrator conceded that he cannot stop third-party sites from publicizing settlements nor stop bad international actors from filing fraudulent claims, his shop is constantly working on technological advances to create firewalls to head them off. But he lamented that technology that works for a time, e.g., Captcha, eventually falls prey to even more sophisticated fraudsters.

Finally, according to the administrator, for litigants that need to collaborate on a settlement process, it is critical that both parties be on the same page about fighting fraud and empowering the case’s settlement administrator to do so. He said that if he was such a litigant, he would want to know what his options were to weed out fraud, what has been successful in other cases, and how much each option costs.

If litigants fail to take this threat seriously and simply hire the cheapest administrator with the least amount of fraud controls, the result will always be the same: more money spent on administration, while less money goes to the class, a result that nobody (except maybe the administrators!) should want.

While defendants will have to decide for themselves which option is best for their situation, the most important thing is that they are aware that many of the claims made on a settlement may be fraudulent and they have a plan in place to detect the issue.

This article was previously published on  Law.com New York Law Journal on July 26, 2023. © ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved. 

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Certum Group Can Help

Get in touch to start discussing options.

Recent Content

Wall Street Journal Publishes Will Marra’s Op-Ed on Weil’s Collapse

By Certum Group Team • November 3, 2026
Certum’s Will Marra published an op-ed in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal drawing lessons from the recent collapse of Weil Gotshal for broader debates about third-party litigation funding and outside investment in law firms. Marra builds on scholarship by John Morley of Yale Law School, who has demonstrated that two legal ethics rules can contribute to the swift collapse of law firms. Those rules are Rule 5.4, which bars non-lawyer investment in law firms, and Rule 5.6, which bars non-competes for lawyers. Marra argues that these two rules affect every firm every day, by making it harder for them to make long-term investments that could reduce the cost of legal services, improve client service, and benefit the civil justice system. Marra suggests that reforming Rules 5.4 and 5.6 could not only help prevent the sudden collapse of the Weils of tomorrow but also improve the legal system writ large. The article is available at this link . For some of Will’s other commentary on litigation finance and the civil justice system, please see the article Litigation Finance in the Market Square , which was co-authored with Certum’s Scholar in Residence, Suneal Bedi , and was published last year by the Southern California Law Review.

Why You Should Talk to a Funder Before You Hire Counsel

By Patrick Dempsey • October 27, 2026
This is the fifth post in Certum Group's seven-part series bringing our Trade Secret Litigation Playbook to the blog. It draws on Part V of the Playbook, Choosing Counsel and Structuring the Economics. Read or download the full Playbook here . The most common mistake I see claim holders make is also the most understandable one: they sign a law firm to a full contingency before they ever talk to a funder. A firm offering to take the whole case on contingency feels like a gift. You spend nothing, the firm carries the risk, and you share the upside only if you win. What could be wrong with that? When you look at cases side by side, quite a lot. A claim holder who engages a funder first and then hires counsel on a hybrid structure typically keeps substantially more of the recovery. To see why, start with the three ways to pay for a case. The three fee structures Hourly is the traditional model: you pay standard rates as the work is done, you own the outcome, and you bear 100% of the cost, win or lose. It fits deep-pocketed companies that want complete control, and smaller matters where alternative structures are hard to price. Full contingency puts the firm's fees entirely at risk, paid only from the recovery, usually at 33% to 40% of whatever comes in. It is attractive when you have limited capital, and the willingness of a good firm to take it is a genuine signal of merit. But it carries a real cost: that 30-to-40-percent-plus is meaningfully more than the combined economics of a hybrid or funded structure. Hybrid — shared risk — is the sweet spot for most matters between roughly $10 million and $250 million. The firm discounts its hourly rate, often steeply, in exchange for a smaller contingent premium on success. It preserves alignment while avoiding the full-contingency tax, and it becomes especially powerful when a funder pays the discounted fees, the claim holder pays nothing out of pocket, and counsel keeps meaningful upside. Why sequence changes the outcome Here is the part that sounds counterintuitive until you run the math. A 33-to-40-percent contingency leaves you with 60 to 67 cents of every recovery dollar. A hybrid structure — where counsel takes a smaller contingency, often 15 to 25 percent, layered on a discounted hourly fee that a funder pays — frequently leaves the claim holder with 50 to 65 percent after the funder's return, and sometimes more. The precise economics depend on the size and shape of the case, but the direction is robust: full contingency is rarely the cheapest path for a strong claim. Sequence matters because leverage is perishable. Once you sign a full-contingency engagement letter, the firm has effectively "bought" the case for its own investment committee, and switching firms afterward is expensive and awkward. With a funder in place and a hybrid structure available, you keep your optionality — you can hire the very best trial firm for your matter, rather than the best firm that happened to be willing to shoulder full risk. A funder's "no" is also valuable There is a quieter benefit, too. When a sophisticated institutional investor is willing to deploy non-recourse capital against your claim, that is one of the strongest external validations of case quality you can get, and counsel reads it that way. But even a decline is useful: it tells you where the weaknesses are — thin damages, a collectability problem, an identification gap — while you can still fix them, and before you have committed to a firm. Either way, you learn something you would rather know now than a year in. The sequence to consider In practice it looks like this. Retain trade secret counsel on a focused, limited-scope engagement to run an initial case assessment under privilege. While that is underway, open a confidential conversation with one or more funders, sharing the same materials. Use the funder's view — its willingness to fund, its read on damages, its suggested economics — to inform your choice of trial counsel. Then interview firms with that information in hand and propose a hybrid structure supported by the funder. Done well, the engagement letter, the funding agreement, and your preservation protocols can all be signed within the same week. None of this is a knock on contingency counsel, many of whom are excellent. It is simply a reminder that the cheapest-looking option at signing is often the most expensive one at resolution — and that a short conversation, before you sign anything, can be worth a large share of the recovery. Go deeper with the Playbook. This post covers one piece of a much larger picture. For the full framework — what the law requires, what a strong pre-filing case looks like, how damages experts value these matters, how counsel fee structures change your economics, and how litigation finance fits in — read Certum Group's Trade Secret Litigation Playbook , our field guide for business owners and the counsel who advise them: certumgroup.com/the-trade-secret-playbook . And if you are evaluating a live dispute — or simply want to pressure-test what a matter is worth and how it might be funded — get in touch. A confidential conversation with Certum is free and carries no obligation, whether or not you ultimately seek funding. Reach us at certumgroup.com/contact-us .

Connecticut Court Keeps Litigation Funding Agreements Out of Steffanci v. DFG Trial

By Ross Weiner • October 21, 2026
A Connecticut state court has joined a long line of precedent holding that a litigant’s communications with a litigation funder are irrelevant and improper subjects of discovery. On October 19, 2026, the Connecticut Superior Court (Stamford) granted plaintiff Thomas Steffanci’s motion in limine and barred any evidence or argument about his litigation funding agreements at trial in Steffanci v. DFG Trademarks V, LLC (Docket No. FST-CV20-6045998-S). Judge Sheila Ann Ozalis found the agreements irrelevant, prejudicial, and unnecessary for the point defendants wanted to make. The dispute Steffanci moved to exclude his funding agreements as irrelevant to the claims and defenses in his upcoming trial, in which he is seeking at least $4 million in contract and fiduciary duty claims against his former employer. Defendants opposed on two grounds: Drafting intent. A central issue is whether the operative contract required amendments to be in writing. Defendants argued the funding agreements contain express written-amendment clauses, i.e., the kind Steffanci allegedly deleted from the LLC Agreement, showing he knew how to require a writing when he wanted one. Jury narrative. Defendants said the funding evidence was needed to rebut a misleading picture of a David vs. Goliath story. The court’s reasoning The court sided with plaintiff, finding that admitting the funding agreements for either purpose would be prejudicial and irrelevant to the claims and defenses. The decisive point was cumulativeness. Defendants did not need the funding agreements to show Steffanci knew how to draft a written-amendment requirement, because another contract at issue in the case (and admissible at trial) contains language “virtually identical” to the clauses defendants pointed to in the funding agreements. The order did not separately address the “corporate family” narrative argument beyond rejecting it as part of the overall relevance and prejudice finding. Why it matters The ruling adds to the line of decisions keeping litigation funding agreements away from juries absent a specific, case-tied need. The ruling also further supports the view that courts should not adopt procedural rules requiring the mandatory disclosure of litigation funding. Courts already have inherent power to require such disclosure if appropriate, and they usually find that disclosure is inappropriate. A few practical points for funders: Creative relevance theories still face a prejudice and necessity screen. Defendants offered a contract-interpretation rationale rather than a generic bias attack, and it still failed. Cumulative alternatives sink the argument. Where the same point can be made with an ordinary deal document already in evidence, courts have little reason to put the funding agreement in front of the jury. “David vs. Goliath” rebuttal arguments are not enough. The court did not accept that funding evidence is needed to balance a sympathetic plaintiff narrative. Boilerplate travels. Defendants’ theory rested on standard written-amendment clauses in the funding documents. Funded parties should expect opponents to mine funding agreements for drafting comparisons and be ready with an argument like the one that worked here. Steffanci v. DFG Trademarks V, LLC, No. FST-CV20-6045998-S (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 19, 2026) (Ozalis, J.) (order on Motion in Limine, Entry No. 892.00). Certum’s Model Brief Certum Group has published a model brief advising claimants and their counsel on how to resist discovery requests like those Steffanci faced in his Connecticut case. If you are interested in further reading on the discoverability of litigation finance agreements, click here to download the brief.