In Re Subway Footlong Sandwich Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16260

A viral 2013 photo showed a Subway "Footlong" sandwich measuring 11 inches; multiple lawsuits followed and were consolidated in the Eastern District of Wisconsin as an MDL.
Early limited discovery showed most Footlongs measure ≥12 inches; occasional shortfalls are about a quarter-inch and result from unavoidable variability in baking.
Subway’s raw dough sticks weigh the same, and meat/cheese portions are standardized and added in view of the customer, so shorter loaves do not reduce the amount of food received.
Plaintiffs initially sought damages (Rule 23(b)(3)) but discovery made damages certification impossible; they shifted to seeking injunctive relief (Rule 23(b)(2)) and negotiated a settlement.
Settlement required measuring tools, sampling inspections, oven checks, and a disclaimer acknowledging natural baking variability; it ran four years and capped class counsel fees at $525,000.
Objector Theodore Frank argued the settlement provided no meaningful class benefit and primarily paid lawyers; the district court approved certification and the settlement, and Frank appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to appeal	Frank, as a class member bound by settlement, may challenge certification/approval	Settlement awards only injunctive relief; fee reductions wouldn’t benefit class members so objector lacks stake	Frank has standing to appeal because he was bound by the settlement and timely objected
Whether class certification and settlement were fair, reasonable, adequate	Settlement’s injunctive measures improve uniformity and thus provide meaningful relief	Measures and disclaimer provide meaningful protections and enforcement via contempt if needed	Settlement yields no meaningful relief because variability remains and procedures/ disclaimer acknowledge that; certification and approval were improper
Whether settlement provided “effectual relief” vs. lawyer-focused payoff	Settlement delivers consumer protections for four years—valuable to class	Settlement’s primary effect is to pay class counsel and avoid liability without materially helping class	Court: settlement yields effectively zero benefits to class and mainly enriches counsel; such settlements must be rejected
Appropriateness of relying on contempt/enforcement to salvage relief	Enforcement mechanisms (contempt) ensure compliance and value	Contempt might enforce meaningful obligations and deter violations	Contempt cannot transform a settlement that itself concedes lack of meaningful relief into a valuable one; enforcement of a worthless injunction is worthless

In re Walgreen Co. Stockholder Litig., 832 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2016) (class settlements that yield only fees and no meaningful relief are improper)
Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., 772 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2014) (objectors’ standing and courts’ vigilance over class settlements)
Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002) (class members bound by settlements may appeal approval)
Reynolds v. Beneficial Nat’l Bank, 288 F.3d 277 (7th Cir. 2002) (district judge as fiduciary of the class; high duty of care in settlement approval)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (heightened attention to class certification in settlement context)
Synfuel Techs., Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 463 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2006) (highest degree of vigilance required for class settlement review)
In re Aqua Dots Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2011) (class representatives must fairly and adequately protect class interests; worthless relief undermines adequacy)
Eubank v. Pella Corp., 753 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2014) (post-settlement preservation of preexisting benefits can add value to class)
Kamilewicz v. Bank of Boston Corp., 100 F.3d 1348 (1st Cir. 1996) (risks that lawyers and defendants favor settlements that do not serve class interests)