exchange for nothing of monetary value to the vast majority of the class and little of real value the last approval of this deal must be reversed for three sets of reason each of which is dispositive and which has long demanded in particular with respect to the inflated twenty four million dollars value that the court indoors which is not supported by the record for flex arizona law and in fact the monetary value of this deal of the class on this record is forty four thousand dollars not twenty four million nd even if the court had applied proper scrutiny this deal cannot be approved consistent with require that a plaintiff be able to figure asli prosecute class claimants in order to negotiate a settlement that releases his last claims here plaintiff him couldn't prosecute the class claims at all at the time she entered into this deal let alone vigorously process them and that she reached out and included claims that she couldn't ha prosecute and that is fatal it's incurable and for both of those reasons to him three approval of this deal the nine point of him should be free to pursue for individual claim through the arbitration proceeding that she has yet to begin she's entitled to four thousand dollars in statutory damages for every month that she pay a gender applied so that's incorrect but more importantly on final approval the court did not apply the comprehensive review that this or demands because when you look at the how it endorsed evaluation if you look at the analysis  the opinion you can see that it didn't exactly screw twenty four million dollars twenty four million dollars in monetary value is not supported by this record the court assumed one hundred percent claim three the court analyzed the hundred percent claims raise valuable for whom settlements consistent with a comprehensive review that this court and the consumer class action the assumption of one hundred percent claims rate so the six million dollars for that component brief when they tell the court that they expected a one to three percent claims rate in a consumer class action that the one to three percent claims rate they now contend is what happened here is well within the expectations one hundred percent migrate with the one two out of the settlement numbers is and it doesn't violate any of the number of things that are out there but it seemed to me that the district court analyzed this under under alternate honour's question i do think it would be inappropriate under either the common fund or the common find here does not support your plans for sure but i think it would be inappropriate based on the reasons that we articulated to the district court that the and indeed sought to achieve through this through this settlement the the this court's standard if the court recognizes that the common fund does not support the one  r i do think it would be a problem given the monetary value to approve the settlement underwood's if i think that would be a problem your honor if if if if that follows if you're saying that the common fun because of the way that they're twenty three requires a comparison between the monetary value of the class as compared to the use it's a package deal and always now has been in terms of approval and if the court with the core i understood your core your honor's question to the if spent time and terms of lodestar a one million dollars worth of time and all they can show for it is forty four thousand dollars in return for the other class of numerous seems to me you keep stressing how the absent class members will be forced to release valuable claims and you you say that i guess each of them would be entitled to have these four thousand dollars stature damages and obviously if you're right about that the settlement could not be approved and completely ignored him it seems to me though that they just record started from a different position basically viewing these as worthless claims because i think the court may be found more persuasive than other court of appeal decision rather than the one that you all have won and i guess i just wanted to hear your response to that because i will confess to you that i'm more in line with the just your quick view of this just seems like a rear this isn't seem like invidious discrimination seems like they're l in this federal case they're going to have to you have to and south or you've likely didn't succeed on any of the on the fact that different courts that it's coming out different ways and you know compared to some things that we see  they can give you an idea about how different people see things but neither of those are really was the case for us right they are law of the case for the class members planes and that's what's different about this things because there was a because the class member claims that are being released in this case include the state court claim and the court was not the court would not just look at the box plaintiffs him in the claims that she was released in this case because you have to r side of that coin is the district judge has to exercise a rigorous analysis because the district judge really is the ultimate representative of making sure that the class members are not being sold well and many of them and so yes we only st for abuse of discretion but we have to be satisfied that there was a rigorous analysis here how for example did he get to the to the district judge get to the think it would be fair for this court to find that that was an overvaluation however i will tell the court what the justification for that was from counsel's perspective and what that is is it's based on the anticipated monetary value that's provided to the class vi or is the case in the allegedly unlawful discrimination practice going forward which would benefit every single member of the class because anybody who used it in their app in the future which is the majority of class members would no longer be subject to that discrimination and what we did is class council as we balanced the valuation of unction against the valuation of the other components of settlement namely the universal participation component and the monetary relief component and if we had done that in full it would have valued the injunction of eighteen million dollars but for conservative purposes we represent a court that we represent that we believed it was valued at six million dollars now let's assume for sake of argument to them all it could do was correct the behavior going forward for any future customers and put all customers on even nondiscriminatory playing field which is exactly what the injunction dead that is a benefit under the u played in the complaint and served as our basis for a public injunctive relief plan and it is absolutely untrue to say that that is a valueless claim because it was a claim that we were pursuing from the outset and it is a claim that is provided u nder the plain language of the unfair competition law so i do think your honor is giving correct pushback in that the valuation of that component could potentially be subject to scrutiny by this court but that alone does not render the entirety of the settlement unfair in fact the majority of the benefit to the class comes from the super like benefits which are automatic universal and were provided in every single class members accounts great question your honor and it's very different i'll explain why let's give let me give you a hypothetical let's say a retailer like macy's gives a ten dollar off coupon or a twenty five percent off coupon to a consumer  it's very distinct because super likes are individual consumable products that we know based on a discovery that was conducted by class council which is in the record of the things that were in fact being  story of class members in fact the record shows that india was making the over ninety million dollars in these all of her purchases and that it comprised twelve percent of its annual revenue moreover at the class members were using them at a rate of thirty fo and we also know from discovery though i don't believe it is in the record that the majority of class members were were purchasing them during other march you know that year your opponent's position as i understand it is that they all get one hundred and fifty dollars of these things a month and so you're saying that on average every single class number used up not only one hundred and fifty dollars they get for free essentially but you know the decision they bought thirty or more correct they were spending thirty four dollars a month on average on these in addition to their service based on the discovery every single class of them well it's an average so certainly there are some class numbers if i don't the figure was was actually a subset and it was only of those who did purchase additional cheaper likes of those people on average they bought thirty and that could be one percent and could be two percent it could be ninety percent but i thought the record was silent on what percentage of a larger group that subset with respect to there were a couple points the council raised i want to just distinguish very clearly this case from the kobe case that case was on the prosody your honor was correct in reversing it that the district court's decision i think is stronger in fact the injunction here is more akin to another and circuit case that just came out a few months ago on this called little john versus copeland which involved false advertising and and that case upheld the subtle meant even though it did the same thing and i think i think that has been criticized but this case provides in addition to that injunctive relief also provides automatic monetary release in the form of super likes which are equivalent to cash because we know class members wanted them and also the option of getting additional monetary relief and or additional super likes or tinder paid thermistors in exchange so this is very distinct from  a priest certification settled it well we need to look at about nine things was what were the relative positions of the parties and given that case the plaintiffs were certainly in a better position than they had been previously yes well again not necessarily because these are the standard for liability under the handler in case makes it more difficult to achieve plas is the point is that because the abba sorry system breaks down when you have a settlement in a class action consequence the judges had a great disadvantage and then if you have one party saying well we're not going to oppose this when they have no particular motive to take any position whatsoever that is according to many cases a red flag the attorney's fees and i'm ok with the loadstar but i'm not ok with the other i find some fault there and i still affirm yes yes the the percentage that this was an inadequate settlement among other reasons because it did not include prior tend their members who had been if you accept a player serial for charge just as much even setting that aside to break off to go to the point that you were just raising the problem with that honan is it gives the former customers nothing for within the class there within the class they no longer have an account with and they  climb if they file a claim that is correct and where and we know the actual value of that components that standing alone would not be a fair reason the inadequate settlement for all cost in the st forty four thousand dollars for claims that are valuable and the that is the point i every single component is there is an error this deal is worth forty four thousand dollars not twenty four million dollars and the decision must be the voters right thank all of you for your arguments in this matter and