In re Yahoo! Litig.

Case # 06-cv-02737
Case Name In re Yahoo! Litig.
Jurisdiction US District Court for C.D. CA
Summary

Plaintiffs claims stem from deceptive marketing engaged by Yahoo! with regard to its advertisement placement services. Yahoo! claimed that its advertising was "highly targeted" but in fact was largely randomly generated. Yahoo! continued to charge a premium price for these ads, despite not delivering on their marketing promises.

Final Approval Date 01/15/2010
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. The Davis, Miller, and Frank Objectors appealed the Final Approval.
  3. All appeals were voluntarily dismissed by the parties.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 09/23/2010
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval.pdf
Plaintiffs Response to Objections.pdf
Final Approval.pdf
Dismissal of All Appeals.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of O. E. Express

Objectors O. E. Express
Signers John W. Davis
Attorneys John W. Davis
Steven F. Helfand
Summary
  1. Class members who are not "out of business" do not receive compensation.
  2. Injunctive relief is uncertain and illusory.
  3. Release is overbroad.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  5. Class representative incentive awards are excessive.
Attachments Objection of O.E. Express.pdf
Appeal of Objector O.E. Express.pdf
O.E. Express Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of LightTheNations.com, ChaseandSam.com, Digital Playroom, Inc, James Owen, Randal S. Ford

Objectors LightTheNations.com
ChaseandSam.com
Digital Playroom, Inc
James Owen
Randal S. Ford
Signers Steve A. Miller
Attorneys Steve A. Miller
Jeffrey L. Weinstein
Summary

NOTE: Objection was not included in the Court Docket.

NOTE: Jeffrey L. Weinstein filed his appearance on the appeal.

Attachments Appeal of Miller Objectors.pdf
Weinstein Appearance (Miller Objectors).pdf
Miller Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Eric Turkewitz

Objectors Eric Turkewitz
Signers Theodore H. Frank
Attorneys Theodore H. Frank
Summary
  1. Relief available to many class members is illusory.
  2. Settlement unfairly favors former customers of Defendant who are out of business.
  3. Attorneys' fees are improperly calculated.

NOTE: Ted Frank withdrew as counsel for Objector Turkewitz four days before the appeal was voluntarily withdrawn.

Attachments Objection of Eric Turkewitz.pdf
Objection of Eric Turkewitz (Attorneys' Fees).pdf
Appeal of Frank Objectors (Turkowitz and Miles Tech).pdf
Frank Withdrawal.pdf
Frank Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Miles Technologies

Objectors Miles Technologies
Signers Barbara Mandell
Attorneys Barbara Mandell
Daniel D. Haggerty
Theodore H. Frank
Summary
  1. Settlement only provides injunctive relief to the vast majority of class members, providing no actual benefit for class members who do not wish to use Yahoo! services in the future.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

NOTE: Ted Frank represented Miles Technologies on appeal, ultimately withdrawing as counsel four days before the appeal was voluntarily dismissed.

As discussed in various declarations, an offer of $83,500 existed for Miles Technology to drop their objection, though it is uncertain whether that amount was offered by class counsel or demanded by the objector.

Attachments Objection of Miles Technologies.pdf
Frank Appearance for Objector Miles Technologies.pdf
Boni Declaration Regarding Objection of Miles Technologies.pdf
Declaration of Daniel Haggerty Regarding Miles Technologies Objection Payoff.pdf
Declaration of Christopher Miles Regarding Miles Technologies Objection Payoff.pdf
Appeal of Frank Objectors (Turkowitz and Miles Tech).pdf
Frank Withdrawal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated