Knapp v. Art.com

Plaintiffs allege that Art.com (and other affiliated sites) intentionally mislead consumers about the prices of their products.  The sites heavily promoted "limited time sales", which were effectively perpetual in nature.  When one sale ended, another began.  As a result of this misleading pricing, consumers ended up paying a premium, believing they were getting a sale price.

1. Final Approval granted.
   1. The Court, agreeing with Objector Sandefur, found the cy pres recipient inappropriate, given a pre-existing relationship with class counsel.
   2. The Court also refrained from approving the attorneys' fee request until the voucher redemption rate is known and the true value of the settlement can be assessed.

1. Vouchers should be considered coupons and their value to the class is questionable.
2. Attorneys' fees are excessive, when compared to the recovery by the class and should not be calculated until the actual recovery by the class is known.
3. Injunctive relief provides no benefit to the class and largely consists of actions the Defendant has already undertaken to comply with relevant law.
4. "Clear sailing" and "kicker" provisions are improper.
5. Cy pres provisions are not adequately included in class notice.