Massachusetts Attorney General Slams TJX Consumer Settlement Sale, Dubbing It A “Dubious Benefit”

Written by Evan Schuman
November 17th, 2007

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley—who is heading the multi-state attorney general probe of TJX—wrote to the federal judge overseeing the TJX cases on Thursday strongly objecting to a part of the proposed settlement of the consumer class-action case, according to documents filed in federal court on Friday.

The consumer class-action lawsuit—which already has a proposed settlement before the judge—is separate from the bank class-action lawsuit.

Coakley joined the chorus of parties objecting to the settlement including a one-day public sale that TJX proposed holding to help the consumers who were victimized in the data breach.

Coakley’s objection was not so much with the sale itself, but with having it included as a part of the official settlement. The difference? If it’s in the official settlement, it increases how much money the consumer lawyers involved in the case get for their fee.

"We are unaware of precedent in which a Special Event, or any type of sale open to the general public, has been deemed a benefit of a class action settlement and this court should avoid that precedent. We believe this aspect of the proposed settlement demeans the class action process, which can be used as a meaningful tool to protect consumers," Coakley wrote to U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young, on behalf of some of the participating state attorneys general. "Please note, however, that in commenting on this particular aspect of the proposed settlement agreement, we do not suggest our approval of the settlement’s other terms."

The attorneys general who signed the letter represented Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont and California. Back in March, there were 34 states involved in the probe. There was no word what happened to the other 24 states and whether they endorse the letter’s comments.

The state probe itself has been silent since being announced and the status of its investigation is unclear.

In her letter, Coakley stressed that she was not objecting to the sale directly, but merely to have it was legally classified. "We are not suggesting that TJX cannot, or should not, hold a sale as a goodwill gesture to its customers, including customers who may have been impacted by the TJX security breach. But the Special Event should not qualify as a class benefit relevant to the determination of whether the settlement agreement is procedurally and substantively fair, adequate, and reasonable," she wrote.

Coakley’s core point was that the sale is not in any meaningful way a penalty to TJX and, indeed, is more likely the opposite.

"The Special Event is nothing more than a retail sale, which would primarily benefit the defendant, TJX Companies. If deemed a benefit to the class, the retail sale also presumably would benefit class action counsel, whose fees would be impacted by a nominally higher valued settlement," Coakley wrote. "It is unclear what benefit, if any, the class gains
from a retail sale that is open to the general public. TJX should not inure the good will of this court or the public for a sale that enhances its bottom line, nor should the class’s attorneys reap large fees for an unquantifiable and dubious benefit. Here, class action counsel anticipates receiving fees of $6.5 million, based, at least in part, on an unquantifiable benefit to the class from the Special Event. This represents a tremendous amount of money to the extent it is linked to the Special Event, or vouchers. We, therefore, urge this Court to reject the Special Event as a benefit of the settlement or, at the very least, subject the Special Event to heightened scrutiny before approval."

In other TJX news from those federal filings on Friday, Judge Young has ordered the parties to go into mediation, a move that will temporarily pause the federal class-action lawsuit while a mediator is appointed and meets with the parties.

By placing the case—where groups of banks are suing TJX for its role in the world’s worst credit card data breach—in an official Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program, Young has likely concluded that this is little if any factual disagreement and that a mediator might be able to coax the two sides into a settlement, said Mark Rasch, the former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s white collar crimes unit and an attorney specializing in retail fraud issues.

Mediation is quite different from binding arbitration, where an arbitrator hears evidence and makes a ruling. Arbitrators—who are often retired judges—just try to propose various resolutions and tries to broker some kind of a deal.

Arbitration meetings are not public, in the same way that any settlement talks are not public. If a settlement is not reached, the federal civil trial would resume.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.