UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE: FICO ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) 

RELATED CASES ) Judge Edmond E. Chang 

 ) 

 ) Magistrate Judge David E. 

 ) Weisman 

This Document Relates to the ) 

Following Cases: ) 

 ) 

SKY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, on behalf ) 

of itself and all others similarly situated, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) No. 1:20-CV-02114

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

 ) 

FIRST CHOICE FEDERAL CREDIT ) 

UNION, on behalf of itself and all others ) 

Similarly situated, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) No. 1:20-CV-02516 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

 ) 

AMALGAMATED BANK, on behalf of itself ) 

and all others similarly situated, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) No. 1:20-CV-02533 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:378
2 

FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

 ) 

ALCOA COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT ) 

UNION, on behalf of itself and all others ) 

similarly situated, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) No. 1:20-CV-02559 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

 ) 

GETTEN CREDIT COMPANY, individually ) 

And on behalf of all others similarly situated, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) No. 1:20-CV-02651 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

 ) 

KENMORE NY TEACHERS FEDERAL ) 

CREDIT UNION, on behalf of itself and all ) 

Others similarly situated, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) No. 20-CV-02755 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, EQUIFAX, ) 

INC, EXPERIAN, PLC and TRANSUNION, ) 

LLC ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:379
3 

 ) 

 ) 

ALTERNATIVE FINANCE, INC and ) 

BROOKFIELD MANAGEMENT ) 

COMPANY, on behalf of themselves ) 

and all others similarly situated, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) No. 20-CV-03204 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

 ) 

CITY OF BOSTON CREDIT UNION, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) No. 20-CV-03315 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

 ) 

HOLMES COUNTY BANK AND TRUST ) 

COMPANY, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) No. 20-CV-03395 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

 ) 

GARNER PROPERTIES & MANAGEMENT, ) 

on behalf of itself and all others similarly ) 

situated, ) 

 ) 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:380
4 

 Plaintiffs, ) No. 20-CV-04575 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Ten separate proposed antitrust class actions against Fair Isaac Company 

(FICO) are pending before this Court: Sky Federal Credit Union vs. Fair Isaac Corporation, 20-cv-02114; First Choice Federal Credit Union vs. Fair Isaac Corporation, 

20-cv-02516; Amalgamated Bank vs. Fair Isaac Corporation, 20-cv-02533; Alcoa Community Federal Union vs. Fair Isaac Corporation, 20-cv-02559; Getten Credit Company vs. Fair Isaac Corporation, 20-cv-02651; Kenmore NY Teachers Federal Credit 

Union vs. Fair Isaac Corporation, 20-cv-02755; City of Boston Credit Union vs. Fair 

Isaac Corporation, 20-cv-03315; Holmes County Bank and Trust Company vs. Fair 

Isaac Corporation, 20-cv-03395; Garner Properties & Management vs. Fair Isaac Corporation, 20-cv-04575; and Alternative Finance, Inc. et al vs. Fair Isaac Corporation,

20-cv-03204. Having accepted reassignment of these actions, R. 48, the parties have 

presented various proposals on how best to consolidate the cases under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 42(a), and whom to appoint as interim class counsel under Rule 

23. All ten related actions allege that FICO engaged in monopolistic behavior that 

caused the Plaintiffs to overpay for FICO credit scores, in violation of the Sherman 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:381
5 

Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 & 2, and various state laws.1 But the various Plaintiffs’ attorneys 

wish to proceed on different legal theories of recovery for a subset of Plaintiffs and 

class members. This has led them to disagree over how the cases should be consolidated. R. 62, Alternative Finance Br.; R. 65, Sky Fed. Br.2 

For the reasons discussed in this Opinion, the Court grants the motion filed by 

Sky Federal Credit Union, which has the support of the Plaintiffs in eight of the ten 

related cases (20-cv-02114, 20-cv-02516, 20-cv-02533, 20-cv-02559, 20-cv-02651, 20-

cv-02755, 20-cv-03315, and 20-cv-03395). R. 64, Sky Fed. Mot. The competing motion 

filed by Alternative Finance and Brookfield Management is denied. R. 61, Alternative 

Finance Mot. Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP (the firm for Sky Federal Credit Union) is appointed as Interim Class Counsel representing the direct-purchaser plaintiffs as defined by them, with MoloLamken LLP acting as liaison counsel. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is appointed to represent the indirect-purchaser plaintiffs 

as defined by Scott+Scott. 

I. Background

 All ten related cases allege that FICO overcharged for credit scores. A credit 

score is a three-digit number that is supposed to convey the creditworthiness of a 

consumer, based on his or her credit history. R. 1, Compl. ¶ 1. Consumers can buy 

1The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Sherman Act and Clayton Act claims 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 

U.S.C. § 1367. 

2Citations to the record are noted as R. __, followed by the docket number, with a page 

or paragraph number if applicable. Unless otherwise noted, docket citations are to the docket 

in Sky Federal Credit Union vs. Fair Isaac Company, 1:20-cv-02114. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:382
6 

their own credit scores to monitor their own creditworthiness—the market for these 

scores is called the B2C market, short for business-to-consumer. Id. But the cases 

now before the Court are all concerned with the B2B, or business-to-business market, 

in which businesses buy consumers’ credit scores to assess the risk of extending credit 

or engaging in transactions with those consumers. Id. ¶¶ 1–2.3 FICO has allegedly 

maintained a 90% monopoly over the B2B credit-score market for many years. Id. 

¶ 2. According to most of the Plaintiffs, FICO has had help maintaining its monopoly 

from the three major credit bureaus: TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian. Id. ¶ 5.4

These credit bureaus allegedly acted as FICO’s agents and co-conspirators in negotiating sales of credit scores to businesses in all 50 states, all on terms that favor FICO. 

Id. 

There will be time enough later to delve into the details of FICO’s allegedly 

monopolistic behavior and alleged conspiracy with the credit bureaus. For purposes 

of the consolidation motions, what matters are the different types of Plaintiffs in the 

ten related cases. Although they are all B2B credit-score purchasers, the details of 

their interactions with FICO differ in important ways. 

 The first category of Plaintiffs includes entities like Amalgamated Bank, which 

says it bought FICO scores directly from FICO as well as from credit bureaus. R. 1, 

3There is no need to review the factual allegations in all ten related cases—the overlap 

is considerable—but a representative sample will show the different types of claims and theories they present. 

4See also R. 1, 20-cv-02516, Compl. ¶ 5; R. 1, 20-cv-02533, Compl ¶ 5; R. 1, 20-cv02559, Compl. ¶¶ 3–5; R. 1, 20-cv-2561, Compl. ¶¶ 2, 15; R. 1, 20-cv-2755, Compl. ¶¶ 4, 8; 

R. 1, 20-cv-03315, Compl. ¶¶ 4–7; R. 1, 20-cv-03395, Compl. ¶¶ 4–7. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:383
7 

20-cv-2533, Compl. ¶ 14. Amalgamated Bank’s complaint seeks to represent a class 

of B2B FICO-score consumers that includes “[a]ll B2B Purchasers residing in the 

United States that directly purchased a FICO Score from Fair Isaac ... = during the 

Class Period.” Id. ¶ 86. Sky Federal’s Complaint proposes the same class. Compl. 

¶ 86. The Court will call this category of Plaintiffs that bought credit scores directly 

from FICO, “FICO-Direct Purchasers.” 

 The second category of Plaintiffs includes Sky Federal and all other entities 

that allege that they bought credit scores from FICO through agreements with FICO 

and the credit bureaus. Compl. ¶¶ 14, 55–59. The full definition of Sky Federal’s proposed class includes this second category of businesses: “All B2B Purchasers residing 

in the United States that directly purchased a FICO Score from Fair Isaac and/or a 

Credit Bureau during the Class Period.” Comp. ¶ 86 (emphasis added). The Court will 

call these entities, which bought FICO scores through the credit bureaus, “Credit Bureau Purchasers.” Remember that Sky Federal and seven other Plaintiffs allege that 

the credit bureaus engaged in a conspiracy with FICO that helped maintain FICO’s 

monopoly. Id. ¶ 5 (see also, footnote 4). 

 The third and final group of Plaintiffs includes those that bought FICO scores 

not from FICO or a credit bureau, but from an intermediary company. This group 

includes, for example, Brookfield Management Services, a co-plaintiff in Alternative 

Finance, Inc. et al v. Fair Isaac Company, 20-cv-03204. Brookfield Management Services is a property management company that buys FICO scores from a tenantscreening service, which has bought them from the credit bureaus. R. 1, 20-cv-03204, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:384
8 

Compl. ¶ 4. Garner Properties & Management, which filed its own related lawsuit, is 

a similar business. R. 1, 20-cv-04575, Compl. ¶ 6.5 Alternative Finance seeks to represent a class “consisting of all end-user business-customers that indirectly purchased a FICO Score in the Business Market for credit scores for use and not for 

resale from January 1, 2006 through the present in a Repealer Jurisdiction.” Alternative Finance Compl. at 1. (More later on “repealer jurisdictions.”) This would include Brookfield, Garner, and any other company that bought a FICO score from a 

company that is not FICO or a credit bureau. The Court will call these the Indirect 

Purchasers. 

 But Alternative Finance believes its class also encompasses the second category of Plaintiffs described above: those who bought FICO scores from one of the three 

credit bureaus. R. 62, Alternative Finance Brief in Support of Motion to Consolidate, 

1–3. According to Alternative Finance, a credit bureau is a direct purchaser of a FICO 

score, but anyone who buys a credit score from a credit bureau is an indirect purchaser. Id. This, of course, contradicts Sky Federal’s claim that FICO and the credit 

bureaus are acting in a conspiracy. 

 So Sky Federal’s counsel and Alternative Finance’s counsel have filed separate 

motions to consolidate the actions in this case, through which they are vying for the 

right to represent a presumably dominant share of the proposed classes of plaintiffs: 

5Garner Properties & Management is the only Plaintiff to take no position on the motions to consolidate filed before the Court. R. 62, Alt. Finance Br. at 2 (FN 2). Garner does 

not intend to apply for the lead counsel position and supports Cohen Milstein as the lead 

counsel for indirect-purchaser plaintiffs. Id. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:385
9 

the Credit Bureau Purchasers. Sky Federal’s counsel, Scott+Scott, wishes to represent “Direct Purchasers,” while Alternative Finance’s counsel, Cohen Milstein, 

wishes to represent “Indirect Purchasers” of credit scores. Each side believes the 

Credit Bureau Purchasers fall in its domain. Neither seems to object to the other firm 

taking charge of the undisputed plaintiffs on either end of the spectrum (the Indirect 

Purchasers for Cohen Milstein, and the FICO-Direct Purchasers for Scott+Scott). The 

questions now before the Court are: in what configuration should the ten related cases 

be consolidated, and who should take the lead on representing the Credit Bureau 

Purchasers? 

II. Standard of Review 

A. Rule 42(a): Consolidation

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) grants federal district courts the authority and discretion to consolidate related actions for greater efficiency. The Rule states: 

“If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: 

(1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate 

the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” FED. R.

CIV. P. 42(a). Courts should consolidate related actions when possible to promote judicial economy, as long as the consolidation does not unduly prejudice any party. 

Ikerd v. Lapworth, 435 F.2d 197, 204 (7th Cir.1970); United States v. Knauer, 149 

F.2d 519, 520 (7th Cir. 1945). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:386
10 

B. Rule 23(g): Class Counsel 

 In a proposed class action, a federal court may assign interim class counsel 

even before taking up the motion for class certification. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1), (3). 

In deciding whom to appoint as class counsel, the court must consider the following 

factors that show counsel’s likely competency to handle the case: 

(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims 

in the action; 

(ii) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and 

the types of claims asserted in the action; 

(iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and 

(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A). The Court can also consider any other factors related to 

“counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B). Among these miscellaneous factors, courts have routinely recognized, over the past decade, the value of a legal team that is diverse across axes of 

gender, race, and other aspects of identity. See, e.g., City of Providence, Rhode Island 

v. AbbVie Inc., 2020 WL 6049139, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2020).

III. Analysis 

 Before examining the consolidation and class-counsel proposals, it makes 

sense to further explain the significance of categorizing plaintiff classes as indirect or 

direct purchasers. Plaintiffs who win on violations of federal antitrust laws are entitled to recover treble damages under the Clayton Act. 15 U.S.C. § 15. But the Supreme Court ruled in the canonical Illinois Brick case that only direct purchasers—

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:387
11 

those who purchased goods or services directly from the alleged antitrust-violator at 

a monopoly price—may recover under federal antitrust law. Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 746 (1977). When a conspiracy is afoot, the first purchaser outside 

the conspiracy is considered a direct purchaser. Marion Healthcare, LLC v. Becton 

Dickinson & Co., 952 F.3d 832, 839 (7th Cir. 2020). Indirect purchasers—those who 

would have to show that the direct purchaser passed on the monopoly pricing to the 

next purchaser, through every link in the alleged supply chain—are out of luck under 

this rule. Illinois Brick, 431 U.S. at 735. 

But the antitrust laws of some states permit indirect purchasers to recover 

damages, effectively “repealing” Illinois Brick’s prohibition for plaintiffs who assert 

state law claims. The parties to this case call those states “Repealer Jurisdictions.” 

Alternative Finance reports that the Repealer Jurisdictions are Arizona, California, 

District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, 

North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. R. 1, 20-cv-3204, Compl. 

¶ 91. This leaves over 20 states and territories in which no indirect purchasers can 

recover any damages for antitrust violations. 

In any antitrust case, an indirect purchaser and a direct purchaser are trying 

to prove different things, which might or might not put them at odds. The direct purchaser needs to show only that it paid the alleged antitrust-violator monopoly prices. 

Under Illinois Brick, a direct purchaser can recover treble damages for violations of 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:388
12 

federal antitrust law regardless of whether it passed on the monopoly prices to downstream consumers. Illinois Brick, 431 U.S. at 746–47. An indirect purchaser bringing 

claims under state law in a Repealer Jurisdiction, by contrast, must show that the 

monopoly prices were passed on to it to recover any damages. Supreme Auto Transp., 

LLC v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc., 902 F.3d 735, 743–44 (7th Cir. 2018). But if an indirect purchaser can do that, an important damages multiplier can be the result: indirect purchasers in Repealer Jurisdictions can recover damages under state law even 

if direct purchasers also recover damages under the Clayton Act, leading to multiple 

liability for the defendants. California v. ARC Am. Corp., 490 U.S. 93, 105 (1989) 

(“Ordinarily, state causes of action are not pre-empted solely because they impose 

liability over and above that authorized by federal law, and no clear purpose of Congress indicates that we should decide otherwise in this case”) (cleaned up).6 Proving 

passed-on damages is necessary for the indirect purchaser, but unnecessary—though 

also not inherently harmful—to the direct purchaser. 

Categorizing the Credit Bureau Plaintiffs as indirect versus direct purchasers 

thus has significant consequences for their ability to recover damages through this 

litigation, as well as for litigation strategy. The Court prefers not to decide at this 

stage, without thorough adversarial briefing, whether the Credit Bureau Purchasers 

are indirect or direct purchasers. Scott+Scott, with the support of counsel in eight of 

6This opinion uses (cleaned up) to indicate that internal quotation marks, alterations, 

and citations have been omitted from quotations. See Jack Metzler, Cleaning Up Quotations, 

18 Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 143 (2017). 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:389
13 

the ten cases before the Court, proposes to argue that they are direct purchasers. Sky 

Fed. Br. Even though Cohen Milstein disagrees with this position, they appear to 

accept that the argument must at least be permitted to proceed to the motion-to-dismiss stage. R. 77, Alternative Finance Reply at 1. The question for the Court is how 

best to organize the case to proceed efficiently, without prejudice to the parties. 

A. Consolidation 

 On consideration of the current record and pleadings, the most sensible and 

efficient path forward is to appoint Scott+Scott as Interim Class Counsel representing the FICO-Direct Purchasers and exclusively representing the Credit Bureau Purchasers: this will be the consolidated Direct Purchaser Action. Cohen Milstein is appointed as Interim Class Counsel representing the (undisputed) Indirect Purchasers 

only. Scott+Scott is prepared to argue that the Credit Bureau Purchasers are direct 

purchasers by virtue of the alleged conspiracy between FICO and the credit bureaus, 

and thus entitled to treble damages under the Clayton Act if FICO violated the Sherman Act. Sky Fed. Br. at 5. They have also pleaded claims under various state antitrust and unfair practices statutes. Compl. ¶¶ 148–51. If their Sherman Act claims 

on behalf of the Credit Bureau Purchasers fail, then they are prepared to argue in 

the alternative for recovery under state laws. Sky Fed. Br. at 5; R. 73, Sky Fed. Resp. 

at 7. Cohen Milstein, by contrast, believes that the Credit Bureau Purchasers are 

indirect purchasers, and thus not entitled to recover treble damages under federal 

law. Alt. Finance Br. at 2. They would not pursue treble damages under federal law 

for Credit Bureau Purchasers, which would prejudice those plaintiffs. Again, at this 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:390
14 

stage the Court is not saying which law firm is right. But the Credit Bureau Purchasers are entitled to be represented by the more aggressive counsel that will pursue all 

potentially viable claims on their behalf. 

The Court appreciates Cohen Milstein’s attempt at a compromise proposal in 

its reply brief, which suggested that both teams of counsel should proceed as representatives of the Credit Bureau Purchasers, pleading and briefing their theories until 

one emerges victorious. Alternative Finance Reply at 1. But that would have been 

inefficient and unwieldy. Cohen Milstein appears to be confident that a motion to 

dismiss would quickly resolve the issue with the Credit Bureau Purchasers, leaving 

only one class counsel (in their prediction, Cohen Milstein) representing the Credit 

Bureau Purchasers. Id. at 1–2. But what if Scott+Scott’s theory survives a motion to 

dismiss? That would not mean that the alternative arguments under state laws can 

be abandoned. Many a claim has survived a dismissal motion only to fall at summary 

judgment or be defeated a trial. Would both teams of attorneys continue to represent 

the same disputed class of plaintiffs, possibly for years, coordinating discovery and 

presenting duplicative arguments to the Court? That cannot be the solution to the 

problem. 

The double-Complaint strategy is also unnecessary because Scott+Scott can 

make the same arguments Cohen Milstein would have made on behalf of the Credit 

Bureau Purchasers—in the alternative. The Court does not share Cohen Milstein’s 

concern over possible conflicts in that approach. Alternative Finance Reply at 3–4. 

Attorneys routinely plead in the alternative and zealously argue multiple theories in 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:391
15 

search of the best possible outcome for their clients. Nor do the possible outcomes 

from a motion to dismiss generate immediate cause for concern. It is not clear that, if 

the Credit Bureau Purchasers are found to be indirect purchasers, then this would 

create a conflict of interest for Scott+Scott with the FICO-Direct purchasers. Cohen 

Milstein argues that Scott+Scott will be put in an untenable position because “indirect purchasers like Alternative Finance would need to prove the credit bureaus 

passed FICO’s overcharges on, but the undisputed direct purchasers like Amalgamated Bank have no incentive to do so.” Alternative Finance Reply at 6. But this is 

not really a conflict—it just means that the Scott+Scott team would have to make 

multiple arguments at once, as lawyers often do. It bears repeating that plaintiffs 

recovering under federal law can recover treble damages even if they passed on the 

monopoly pricing. So, it does not harm the direct-purchaser plaintiffs if other plaintiffs show that the pricing was passed on.7 If Sky Federal’s federal claims for the 

Credit Bureau Purchasers do survive a motion to dismiss, then the Court does not 

see why Scott+Scott must choose between the two competing theories, as Cohen Milstein predicts. Alternative Finance Reply at 9. For all the reasons just discussed, they 

can simply continue preparing the case with multiple theories, even up through a 

trial.8

7Also, Scott+Scott is not seeking to represent the credit bureaus (see Compl. ¶ 87); 

and the Credit Bureau Purchasers are only trying to show that the credit bureaus passed on 

costs, not, as far as the Court knows, that any FICO-Direct plaintiffs or class members passed 

on any costs. 

8Meanwhile, there is a potential conflict in Cohen Milstein’s proposed class, between 

undisputed Indirect Purchasers, and the disputed Credit Bureau Purchasers. According to 

Alternative Finance’s own Complaint, Brookfield Management purchased FICO scores from 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:392
16 

All of that being said, if it becomes clear later that Scott+Scott cannot effectively represent all the plaintiffs and classes encompassed by the FICO-Direct Purchasers and Credit Bureau Purchasers, the Court can and will address the problem 

then. Scott+Scott has assembled a team of experienced attorneys from outside its firm 

to serve as a steering committee for this litigation if necessary. Sky Fed. Br. at 13–

14. They have already mapped out possible scenarios, including various subclasses 

and groups, which might require different appointed counsel. Id. at 12–14. They appear to be taking any possible future conflicts with appropriate seriousness. 

As for FICO’s proposal that all of the Plaintiffs be forced to fall into step behind 

one interim class counsel and one consolidated complaint, the Court rejects it. R. 74, 

FICO Br. For the reasons discussed above, it makes sense to separate out the indirectpurchaser plaintiffs from the direct-purchaser plaintiffs in these related actions. The 

Court notes that this does appear to be standard practice in this District and others, 

as proffered by all of the moving Plaintiffs. Alternative Finance Br. at 11; Sky Fed. 

Br. at 5. This belies the notion that it would be a special burden on FICO to face two 

separate consolidated complaints on behalf of two proposed classes. FICO Br. at 6. To 

the extent that FICO was simply seeking to avoid a situation where competing 

agencies that purchased them from the credit bureaus—in other words, from a Credit Bureau 

Purchaser. R. 1, 20-cv-03204, Compl. ¶ 4. It is true that Cohen Milstein proposes to represent 

only end-users, not resellers. Alternative Finance Reply at 8. But they also acknowledge that 

some entities could be end-users for some purchases and resellers for other purchases. Id.

The Court is not convinced that Cohen Milstein’s plan would necessarily have avoided any 

possible intra-class conflicts. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:393
17 

theories are before the Court in separate Complaints, its wish is granted: that was 

Cohen Milstein’s proposal, and the Court has rejected it. 

B. Class Counsel 

 The Court agrees that Scott+Scott is qualified to act as Interim Lead Counsel 

for the direct-purchaser plaintiffs, with MoloLamken serving as Liaison Counsel. Sky 

Fed. Br. at 9. Both law firms have been involved in this litigation since its early days 

and have the expertise and experience needed to represent the proposed class. The 

Court notes Scott+Scott’s track record of successful complex antitrust litigation, as 

well as MoloLamken’s sterling reputation and local presence. Id. 10–11. The Court 

also appreciates that counsel has already thought ahead to possible subclasses and is 

prepared to propose a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee to handle those developments if 

they become reality; the committee would consist of additional qualified attorneys 

who could step in to take on more responsibility if necessary. Id. 12–14. Although 

there might be some small loss in efficiency due to involving additional law firms, 

Scott+Scott and MoloLamken have already demonstrated that they can effectively 

lead and coordinate with other attorneys, by bringing together counsel from eight of 

the ten related actions to support their motion for consolidation and appointment of 

interim class counsel. Finally, the Court agrees that it is in the class’s best interest 

to have a diverse legal team at its disposal, and that Scott+Scott and MoloLamken 

can provide such a team. Id. 14–15. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:394
18 

 Cohen Milstein is likewise eminently qualified to represent the indirect purchaser plaintiffs. The firm has a long history of success in class action litigation, including antitrust class actions. Alternative Finance Br. at 14–15. 

IV. Conclusion 

 For the reasons discussed above, Sky Federal’s Motion to Consolidate and for 

the Appointment of Interim Class Counsel, R. 64, is granted. Alternative Finance’s 

competing motion, R. 61, is denied. Scott+Scott is appointed as Interim Class Counsel 

representing the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, including both the FICO-Direct Purchasers and the Credit Bureau Purchasers, with the understanding that Scott+Scott 

will continue to pursue alternative theories in case its federal claims for the Credit 

Bureau Purchasers fail. Scott+Scott is directed to file a consolidated complaint on 

behalf of all Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs by October 21, 2021. Cohen Milstein is appointed to represent the Indirect Purchasers, including Garner Properties & Management and Brookfield Management Company and others like them. The respective 

Interim Class Counsel and FICO shall confer and propose an answer or Rule 12 motion schedule. The parties shall file, on the docket in 20-cv-2114, a status report on 

October 28, 2021. The Court sets a tracking status hearing for November 5, 2021, at 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:395
19 

8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is required). Instead, the Court 

will review the status report before that date. 

 ENTERED: 

 s/Edmond E. Chang 

 Honorable Edmond E. Chang 

 United States District Judge 

DATE: September 30, 2021 

Case: 1:20-cv-02516 Document #: 32 Filed: 09/30/21 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:396