IN RE: FORTRA FILE TRANSFER SOFTWARE DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, 1:24-md-03090

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Brightline, Inc., alleging that Brightline failed to protect their private information after a large-scale data breach involving Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT software in January 2023.
Over one million individuals' sensitive information held by Brightline was compromised after a ransomware group exploited a vulnerability in the software.
After factual discovery and negotiations, the parties reached a settlement providing a $7 million non-reversionary cash fund and additional security measures.
The Court previously granted preliminary approval, certified a settlement class, and approved a notice program.
Only 27 class members opted out, and one objection was filed.
Plaintiffs sought final approval of the settlement and requested attorneys’ fees and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the class meets Rule 23(a) and (b)(3)	Class is numerous, typical, common, adequate	No opposition	Class certified for settlement purposes
Adequacy/fairness of the settlement	Settlement is fair, covers all class claims	No opposition	Settlement approved as fair/adequate
Objection to adequacy of relief	Relief is reasonable given litigation risks	No opposition	Objection overruled; relief adequate
Attorneys' fees percentage of settlement fund	33.33% of fund reasonable under the law	No opposition	Requested attorneys’ fees approved

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court outlines standards for class certification in settlement)
Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 982 (11th Cir. 1984) (establishes factors for approving class action settlements)
Camden I Condo. Ass’n. v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768 (11th Cir. 1991) (attorneys’ fees in common fund class actions assessed by percentage)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court clarifies commonality standard in class actions)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (standing requirements for class actions)