StarKist Tuna Lawsuit Settlement


A class-action lawsuit against StarKist has been settled after the company admitted to underfilling tuna cans from 2009 to 2014. This violated federal law that requires a 5-ounce can contain at least two and a half ounces of fish. The company opted to settle the suit with consumers in a settlement that will only be available to U.S. residents. The plaintiffs will receive a voucher for $50 worth of StarKist tuna, or a $25 cash payment. The case is still pending, but the case has been deemed settled.

The class action is divided into four parts.

The plaintiffs are the direct purchasers; the second is the end-payer; the third is the food preparers. The lawyers for both sides have argued that they should be treated equally and that there are no qualms about their respective representations. The plaintiffs are represented by Hausfeld LLP, while the lawyers for StarKist are Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP and Cuneo Gilbert & LaLuca LLP.

The settlement was negotiated by a group of companies with a common interest: Del Monte, the largest tuna producer in the U.S., and Dongwon, a Korean conglomerate with plans to expand into a global company. The class-action settlement was reached in 2008 after a criminal investigation was concluded. Dongwon has since apologetically apologized and repaid customers who were harmed by StarKist’s alleged price-fixing practices.

The StarKist lawsuit settlement was reached four years ago, but the settlement is less than what was originally promised.

The settlement consisted of $2.38 in cash and $5 in StarKist rebates. Because there were so many claims, the company could only afford to compensate two people per case. But the large number of people who filed claims pushed StarKist to pay a lower amount. The StarKist tuna lawsuit was a class-action lawsuit, and the settlement was just a way for the company to avoid a class action trial.

The lawsuit claims that the company underfilled canned tuna cans from 2009 to 2014 contained too little fish. The company also violated federal law by filling the cans with only two to three ounces of fish. In addition to the fines, the lawsuit also included a class action settlement in the StarKist tuna lawsuit. The federal court judge also ordered StarKist to pay a $365 million criminal fine for the alleged price-fixing.

The class-action settlement was reached four years ago and was for two-ounce cans of tuna.

The amount of cash settlement was equal to the amount of money owed by each person. The payouts were also reduced because of the large number of people signing up for the settlement. The Starkist lawsuit was settled by the Department of Justice, which ordered the company to pay a $120 million criminal fine. After this, StarKist was ordered to pay another US$100 million fine related to the case.

The StarKist tuna lawsuit settlement involved three major companies that illegally marketed the products. The company allegedly coordinated marketing efforts with Dongwon by replacing its top employees and senior executives with its loyalists. The company also shunned aggregation devices, which result in overfishing. It was the only company to publicly admit to the violations of the regulations. This lawsuit was the first of its kind in the United States.

The StarKist tuna lawsuit settlement was less than the original promise.

It was less than a dollar per person, but it still included $5 in StarKist rebates. The high number of claims was a hindrance to the company’s ability to reach a reasonable settlement. The company agreed to the settlement only after the Department of Justice approved the deal. A few months later, the companies had to face the consequences of their actions.

The StarKist tuna lawsuit settlement was made in May 2017. The company agreed to settle the case in the class action lawsuit because the company had underfilled its products. This is a direct violation of federal law. As a result, the settlement was a win-win situation for StarKist. The StarKist tuna lawsuit settlement is a great deal for the consumers. The attorneys argued that the case was fair.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *