Earlier this week, the District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a massive $900,000 class settlement in Lee v. Springer Nature America, Inc. No. 24-cv-4493, 2025 WL 3523134.
Background
This case concerns allegations that the Defendant’s website https://scientificamerican.com (the “Website”), disclosed subscribers’ Facebook ID, the titles of prerecorded audiovisual materials they accessed on the Website, and the URLs for those materials to Meta without consent, in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (“VPPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2710. In March 2025, the Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiff Lee had adequately alleged standing and a viable VPPA claim.
Following that ruling, the parties attended an in-person, full-day mediation before retired Judge Diane Welsh, after exchanging informal discovery relevant to class certification and the merits. The mediation resulted in a Settlement Agreement under which the Defendant agreed to pay $900,000 into a settlement fund to cover class claims, administration costs, attorneys’ fees and costs, and a service award to Plaintiff. The Defendant also agreed to suspend its use of the Meta Pixel on portions of the Website relevant to VPPA compliance, i.e., webpages that include both video content and have a URL that identifies the video content reviewed. However, the Defendant preserved its ability to obtain VPPA-compliant consent or use the Meta Pixel where the disclosure of information does not identify specific video materials that the user has requested or obtained.
The Settlement
Lee moved for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement on June 27, 2025. The Court initially requested clarification regarding a provision that would have required all individuals objecting to the settlement to state whether they had ever asked for or received any payment in exchange for dismissal of an objection or any related appeal without modification to the settlement. After the parties removed the provision, the Court granted preliminary approval on July 10, 2025.
The settlement class is defined as follows:
“All persons in the United States who: (1) possessed login credentials for the website, https://www.scientificamerican.com (the ‘Scientific American Website’), whether accessed via a web browser or mobile device and were paying subscribers, (2) possessed a Facebook account, and (3) requested or obtained video content from and/or through any of [Defendant]’s services during the Class Period while logged into Facebook.”
The Court reaffirmed that the class satisfied Rule 23 because it likely consisted of thousands or tens of thousands of individuals, rendering joinder impracticable. The common questions included whether the Defendant knowingly disclosed the personally identifiable information of members of the class and whether its conduct violates the VPPA. Lee’s claims were typical of the class, and both he and class counsel were adequate representatives.
Only one objection was submitted. The objector expressed concern about the financial impact of the settlement on Scientific American, questioned the unlawfulness of Meta Pixel disclosures, suggested providing free subscriptions instead of cash, and requested compensation for himself. The Court rejected these arguments, explaining that its role is to evaluate fairness to the class rather than the defendant and that it could not rewrite the parties’ agreement to provide in-kind rather than monetary relief.
Award of Attorneys’ Fees
The attorneys’ fees request required a detailed analysis under Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir. 2000). Class counsel sought $300,000, 33.3 percent of the settlement fund, along with $18,189.53 in costs. The Court approved the costs but reduced the fee award to $200,593.13 after applying the Goldberger factors: (1) counsel’s the time and labor; (2) the litigation’s complexities and magnitude; (3) the litigation risks; (4) quality of representation; (5) the relationship of the requested fee to the settlement; and (6) considerations of public policy.
Under the first Goldberger factor, the Court found that counsel’s estimates of the time devoted to this case were “inflated.” Although counsel represented that it devoted 524.20 hours to the case and expected to spend an additional 150 hours administering the settlement, the Court concluded that “the hours billed were far greater than necessary for this case.” It emphasized that counsel had recorded “48.65 hours under the category ‘pre-suit factual investigation’ and 62.02 hours under the category of ‘drafting the complaint.’” Of the pre-suit hours, “approximately twenty-one were for what Plaintiff describes as ‘Liaison with client re client specific facts and case updates’ and ‘conducting client management’ before the case was filed,” even though the plaintiff himself attested that he spent “approximately 1.5 hours conferring with counsel regarding the factual investigation of the case and the initial draft of the complaint” and “almost 0.5 hours” reviewing the initial draft. The Court observed that “there are four paragraphs in the complaint describing facts regarding the Plaintiff” and that the complaint was “largely boilerplate,” with most sections devoted to generic descriptions of the Meta Pixel, background of the VPPA, class allegations, and claims for relief. The Court noted that by the time counsel filed this complaint, “numerous other similar complaints” involving the VPPA and pixels had been filed. Further, counsel recorded 111.77 hours for drafting the opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and 82.8 hours for drafting a motion to strike. Although the Court recognized the importance of those filings, it found it “unreasonable to bill the class nearly 200 hours for a twenty-three-page opposition to the motion to dismiss and an eight-page motion to strike.” The Court stated that “the motion to dismiss involved well-trodden ground under the VPPA and the motion to strike involved elementary issues under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” and that “neither set of briefs required extensive legal research or involved novel legal arguments.”
The Court then addressed counsel’s hourly rates as part of the first factor. It noted that counsel sought hourly rates of $1,030 for partners, between $385 to $850 for associates, and between $175 to $260 for paralegals. The Court found these rates to be “greater than those approved by courts in this Circuit for this type of litigation,” explaining that “courts in New York have approved rates for attorneys in complex matters such as data privacy cases ranging from $375 to $630 for partners, $200 to $400 for associates, and $100 to $125 for paralegals.” Based on those benchmarks, the Court determined that a reasonable hourly rate for partners would be $600 an hour, for senior associates $350 an hour, for junior associates $200 an hour, and for paralegals $125 an hour.
The second factor considers the magnitude and complexity of the litigation. The Court determined that the case centered on largely legal questions under the VPPA and did not involve extensive factual development or discovery. Although significant, the issues were not so complex as to support the requested rates or hours.
The third factor, litigation risk, required evaluation of the uncertainty faced when the case was filed. The Court acknowledged that counsel assumed some risk in pursuing VPPA litigation but found that the risk was primarily legal rather than factual and would be resolved early in the case. The action did not require lengthy discovery or the development of complicated factual records that could influence litigation outcomes. Therefore, this case did not involve the type of risk common to many other kinds of class action lawsuits.
The fourth factor assesses the quality of representation, measured by results. The court described counsel’s quality of representation as “superlative,” noting that they achieved substantial success for the class in the face of the risk that the class would recover nothing.
The fifth factor examines the proportion of the fee request in terms of the total settlement. Here, counsel’s proposed fee award constituted 33.3% of the total recovery. The Court noted that this is within the typical range for the district but sits at the high end, with fees generally averaging around 25%.
The sixth factor addresses public policy, including the social and economic value of the class action, and the need to encourage experienced and able counsel to undertake such litigation. The Court observed that counsel “performed a public service in undertaking this case and litigating to further the aims of a statute passed by Congress,” and that, in addition to obtaining a monetary recovery, “counsel obtained Defendant’s agreement to suspend operation of the Meta Pixel on portions of its website relevant to VPPA compliance.”
After reducing hourly rates and adjusting the submitted hours, the Court recalculated the lodestar at $133,728.75. It applied a 1.5 multiplier based on the Goldberger analysis, resulting in a final fee award of $200,593.13.
For companies operating digital platforms, settlements like this underscore the importance of proactively assessing how third-party analytics tools, pixels, and cookies interact with evolving privacy laws and consumer expectations. Even seemingly routine website functions can create massive litigation exposure. As VPPA and other privacy claims continue to gain traction, businesses should focus on early compliance reviews to reduce risk.
CIPAWorld 