Public Citizen believes in preserving the availability of class actions as a means of vindicating the rights of people who could not effectively bring suit on an individual basis. Accordingly, the Litigation Group participates in cases aimed at preserving the ability of plaintiffs to maintain class actions in both state and federal courts. At the same time, we recognize that on occasion class action settlements may not be in the interest of all class members, and in such cases we have often represented class members in objecting to and seeking to improve the terms of such settlements.
Read more about our cases on this topic.
Read more about our work representing objectors to proposed class settlements.
- The Fiction of the No-Injury Class Action (10/2015) This paper examines the latest attack on class actions and concludes that the "no-injury class action" is fictitious.
- Class Action "Fairness" Act Analysis A section-by section analysis of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (2005).
- Preventing the Subversion of Devlin v. Scardeletti Article in Class Action Litigation Report concerning the right of objectors to appeal unfair class action settlements without having to intervene (June 2005).
- Let A Hundred Cases Wither Legal Times op-ed critiquing proposal to require opt-in class actions, by David Arkush and Brian Wolfman (May 2005).
- Comment to the Rule 23 Subcommittee of the Civil Rules Advisory Committee (April 2015).
- Testimony before the House Committee the Judiciary regarding H.R. 1115, Class Action Legislation (May 2003).
- Testimony on Proposed Rule 23 Changes before the Rules Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States (January 2002).
- Testimony on Appointment of Class Counsel before the Third Circuit Task Force on the Appointment of Class Counsel (June 1, 2001).
- Testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, in opposition to H.R. 3789, the Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1998 (June 1998).