Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner was elected by the people of Illinois due in […]

We’ve seen this time and time again: lawyers bending the law and abusing […]

Class actions are supposed to be a good deal for consumers. But too often, they’re little more than an excuse to pad the pockets of personal injury lawyers, leaving consumers to walk away with almost nothing. For instance, a recent class action involving Rice Krispies cereal netted $5 refunds for consumers, while plaintiffs’ lawyers claimed entitlement to more than $1.2 million in fees.

In 2005, Congress passed the groundbreaking Class Action Fairness Act, which cracked down on out-of-control lawsuits in which lawyers got millions and plaintiffs got coupons. While we still see plenty of ridiculous some class action settlements (remember the one where plaintiffs got $5 drink vouchers and attorneys qualified for up to $7 million?), this legislation was a great step toward improving our civil justice system.

The bad news is that Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood has potentially been exploiting a loophole the Class Action Fairness Act.

It seems like lawsuits can be filed for almost anything these days, including people’s inability to read nutrition labels. Take the case of a San Diego mother, who claimed that commercials duped her into thinking that Nutella, a chocolate-based spread, was a healthy breakfast for her daughter. But, imagine her dismay when she actually read the label and saw that the spread has 21 grams of sugar and 200 calories per serving. 

Class actions are often unfortunate examples of our civil justice system’s most serious problems. Why? One big reason is who they benefit – while our courts are supposed to make victims whole, class actions tend to favor a different group: plaintiffs’ lawyers! 

The purpose of our civil justice is to compensate victims, not their lawyers. If that’s the case, however, then class actions are failing miserably. If you read our blog, you’ve probably heard about class actions with “ridiculous results,” where plaintiffs receive almost pointless awards like coupons or $2 checks while their trial lawyers receive millions. But what would you say if you heard about a case where class members receive nothing?

Editor’s Note: Project Lawsuit Abuse regularly highlights lawsuit abuse news from across the country. Today, Tom Scott, Executive Director of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, contributed a guest post for Project Lawsuit Abuse.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers recently won a class-action settlement against Sketchers shoes, with a judge ruling that Sketchers advertisements made “unfounded claims that the footwear would help people lose weight and strengthen muscles.”

We won’t get into the facts behind this lawsuit, but we will tell you about the terms of the settlement. Plaintiffs in the case – of which there were about 520,000 – will each receive up to $84. That amount is a partial refund of the cost of a pair of Skechers Shape-Up shoes. The attorneys in the case, however, will receive $5 million.

As regular Project Lawsuit Abuse readers know, lawsuit lending is a practice in which companies offer loans to individuals in the midst of a lawsuit. Typically, people take lawsuit loans to fund immediate needs, such as medical bills and funerals, while waiting for settlement money. Unfortunately, many lawsuit lenders charge outrageously high interest rates, meaning that people frequently end up with more debt than they initially had.

Some entrepreneurs have expanded the concept of lawsuit lending, taking it to a whole new level. Big time investors are now putting their money behind big time lawsuits, with the hopes of making millions.

Tort reformers have been turning up all over the internet recently. We took the liberty of rounding up some of the standouts. You may recognize a few friends of Project Lawsuit Abuse in there. Here are some of the newsmakers from around the country.

Let’s end predatory lending to plaintiffs