• Supreme Court remands Frank v. Gaos to lower court on standing issue, thus sidestepping cy pres question; dissenting from per curiam ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas writes that cy pres payments are “not a form of relief to the absent class members and should not be treated as such (including when calculating attorney’s fees)” [opinion; Ronald Mann, SCOTUSBlog]
• New Manhattan Institute report details problems with cy pres, including its use to support ideologically fraught groups and those advancing plaintiffs’-side interests [James Copland, Trial Lawyers Inc. Update 2019: Cy Pres]
• “Apricot scrub” product was marketed as an exfoliant, court recognizes, and abrasive properties of crushed walnut shells as ingredient are feature not bug [Eric Alexander, Drug and Device Law]
• Cough drop action could provide soothing relief for counsel’s bank account [David Andreatta, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle]
• “Don’t import US-style class action abuses – think-tank” [Law Society Gazette, Ireland]
• As part of its newly active stance on class action oversight, U.S. Department of Justice intervenes in cookie labeling settlement [Amanda Bronstad, Law.com; U.S. Statement of Interest in Cowen v. Lenny and Larry’s]

Filed under: Class Action Fairness Act, class action settlements, class actions, cy pres, Department of Justice