Things are getting heated in the Bartz v. Anthropic case.
Less than 24 hours after third-party law firm ClaimsHero filed a full-throated First Amendment defense of its marketing, social media, and website overtures to Bartz class members to opt out, the Bartz Class Counsel filed motion for leave to file a reply.
Bartz Class Counsel filed the motion on Nov. 13, which means they were working late, past midnight PDT because the hearing is today at 8 AM PDT.
Class Counsel’s proposed reply offers a pointed and powerful refutation of ClaimsHero’s arguments.
Class Counsel even found a YouTube video that it alleges: “This ClaimsHero video is yet another egregious bait-and-switch, leading viewers to believe that the company will file a claim on their behalf, which will “only take[] a few seconds.”
Excerpts from Bartz’s proposed reply
One example of what Bartz says is misleading about ClaimsHero’s website
Bartz Class Counsel gives an example of an email from ClaimsHero CEO sent to a class member that Bartz Class Counsel says is misleading
Bartz points to all the omissions of relevant information that ClaimsHero leaves out
But what about ClaimsHero’s involvement in opting class members out?
The Bartz Class Counsel proposed reply does not specifically address one of the biggest issues I see with what ClaimsHero is apparently doing. Can ClaimsHero file an opt out for a Bartz class member?
Although a reply brief cannot raise new issues, I think this issue became more apparent only with ClaimsHero’s filing of its opposition. In any event, I expect the court to hone in on this issue at today’s hearing. As I said in an earlier post:
Judge Alsup has already ruled out the use of third-party claims aggregators for filing claims of class members for recovery. Although ClaimsHero is not acting as a claims aggregator, it seems to be acting as something akin to an opt-out aggregator or facilitator? But why should third-party ClaimsHero be involved in”[l]et us opt you out“?
One potential concern is that class members may ignore the court-approved notice and information for the class and instead rely only on the information from ClaimsHero’s website, which has not been subject to vetting from the parties to the case (other than Class Counsel’s initial communications), much less review and approval by the court. Bartz Class Counsel says the website is misleading in both its assertions and omissions. Allowing ClaimsHero to file opt outs for class members — as appears to be going on from ClaimsHero’s brief — reduces the need for any class member to review the court-approved notices at all.
For example, a class member might see the YouTube video above. Go to the ClaimsHero website. Click through to opt out of the Bartz settlement and to enlist ClaimsHero’s services.
I seriously doubt that’s what the court envisioned in carefully approving the class settlement process in painstaking detail.
DOWNLOAD BARTZ’S PROPOSED REPLY (SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S APPROVAL)