Amadeck v. Capital One Financial Corp., 80 F. Supp. 3d 781

Consolidated nationwide TCPA class actions alleged Capital One and vendors used autodialers or prerecorded voices to call cell phones for debt collection without prior express consent (claims cover Jan 18, 2008–June 20, 2014 for Capital One; Feb 28, 2009–June 20, 2014 for vendors).
JPML centralized related suits; Plaintiffs filed an Amended Master Complaint and, after mediation, the parties reached a settlement providing a $75,455,099 non-reversionary cash fund plus injunctive changes to Capital One’s dialing protocol.
Notice program (email, postcards, banner ads, website, call center) reached ~15.98 million known class members (~91% of estimated class of ~17.5 million); ~1.38 million timely claims submitted (≈7.9% of class); 462 valid opt-outs and 14 timely objections.
Monetary relief: after subtracting notice/admin costs, service awards, and attorneys’ fees, class claimants receive pro rata distributions — minimum ~$34.60 per claimant before fee adjustments; after court reduces fees, estimated at least $39.66 per timely claimant.
Injunctive relief: Capital One agreed to restrict autodialed calls to cell numbers provided on credit applications or where number is linked by third-party research or recent contact within 90 days.
Court held a fairness hearing, found settlement "fair, reasonable, and adequate," approved the settlement, reduced Class Counsel’s requested fee, and approved $5,000 incentive awards to each Named Plaintiff.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Final approval: is settlement fair, reasonable, adequate under Rule 23?	Settlement provides substantial guaranteed cash and useful injunctive relief given litigation risks and Chevron-level FCC uncertainty.	Settlement is a fair compromise; avoids ruinous litigation and regulatory change risk.	Approved: court found Synfuel factors favor settlement given liability defenses, manageability issues, FCC petitions, limited objections.
Notice and claims process adequacy	Notice plan reached >91% of class; claims procedure simple; high administrative spend justified.	Capital One agreed notice was extensive; administrative approach appropriate.	Approved: court found notice "state of the art," adequate reach, and claims process reasonable; objections on notice denied.
Attorneys’ fees: is 30% ($22.6M) appropriate?	Class Counsel sought 30% (or 32% excluding certain items) based on market practice, risk, and lodestar hours.	Objectors argued fee excessive; defendant reserved ability to pay but did not oppose within reason.	Partly granted: court applied market-mimicking analysis, empirical benchmarks, and risk adjustment to award $15,668,265 (~20.77% of fund).
Incentive awards to Named Plaintiffs	Named Plaintiffs sought modest awards to compensate participation and risk.	No meaningful opposition; awards should be reasonable.	Approved: $5,000 each (5 plaintiffs) — consistent with district practice.

Synfuel Techs., Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 463 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2006) (governs factors for evaluating class settlement fairness)
Isby v. Bayh, 75 F.3d 1191 (7th Cir. 1996) (favors settlement; vigilance required in class settlements)
In re Synthroid Marketing Litig., 264 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2001) (discusses market-based fee benchmarks and risk premium)
In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litig., 629 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 2011) (instructs estimating ex ante market fee for contingent class counsel)
Redman v. RadioShack Corp., 768 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2014) (fees assessed relative to benefit to class, excluding administration/notice costs)
Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., 772 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2014) (applies Redman to cash funds and discusses cy pres/service award treatment)
Silverman v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., 739 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2014) (empirical fee norms and scaling effect)
Continental Illinois Sec. Litigation, In re, 962 F.2d 566 (7th Cir. 1992) (court’s goal to award what would have been negotiated at arm’s length)