Is the class-action settlement legitimate or a lefty scheme?

Received a letter claiming you might be eligible for compensation?

I receive many of these letters.

One alleged that my union (which I was forced to join in New York state) may have wrongfully handled my medical insurance.

Although I didn’t think it was true, I filled out the forms.

I ended up receiving a $557 check.

Great, right?

Except… my lawyers took $7 million.

Is that fair?

Similarly, lawyers accused The Boston Globe of sharing my browsing details with Facebook illegally.

Personally, I wasn’t concerned.

Facebook already has access to my browsing habits.

Plus, I had only briefly subscribed to the Globe.

I canceled as soon as I realized it mainly regurgitated uninspiring leftist content from The New York Times.

Despite this, I received a $158 check.

In principle, class-action lawsuits are intended to protect consumers, but many appear more like scams targeting consumers.

Firstly, lawsuits generally drive up costs for everyone.

Secondly, they remove good products from the market.

For instance, Bendectin, a morning sickness medication, was withdrawn due to numerous lawsuits alleging side effects, even though the FDA declared it safe.

Lawsuits also contributed to the demise of three-wheeled ATVs.

When confronted, lawyers defended this outcome, calling the removal of risky products a positive. “If they’re afraid of someone like me,” one lawyer stated, “I’m satisfied with that.”

Unfortunately, we end up paying for their satisfaction.

Companies should certainly face consequences for their misconduct.

When Google was caught inappropriately collecting location data from users who had disabled location history, it wouldn’t have been worth it for any individual user to sue.

The costs of a lawsuit would overshadow any potential gains. Hence, the need for class actions.

However, in some instances, lawyers have exploited this system. When Google settled a $62 million lawsuit, class action lawyers claimed $18 million for themselves and directed $43 million to specific nonprofits.

Among these were left-wing advocacy groups like the ACLU, with assurances that the funds would benefit “people of color,” “activists,” and those seeking “transgender healthcare.”

Unfortunately, the actual victims of the class action received nothing.

One may wonder why a judge would approve such an arrangement?

Often, judges themselves are former lawyers, many of whom lean left politically. They often enjoy redistributing money to their preferred causes.

Anna St. John, from a law firm challenging such settlements, called it a significant conflict of interest. “You have this massive fund of millions of dollars, and the involved parties, including the judge, decide who should receive the money,” she explained.

She pointed out that “Six of the attorneys or Google employees involved in the case sit . . . or sat on the boards of the recipients receiving millions of dollars.”

When I raised the issue of bad actors rewarding their friends, she affirmed that this was indeed happening.

“Google is giving money to organizations they already support,” she noted.

“It’s unclear how this benefits the class when the defendant is merely doing what they always do.”

“This seems like a left-wing fundraising scheme,” I commented.

“That’s correct. This settlement benefits millions of Americans with varying viewpoints, yet the money is directed to extreme left-wing causes favored by the attorneys and defendant,” she added.

When I asked the lawyers and the judge who approved the arrangement to defend it, no response was provided.

America requires lawyers to safeguard our rights and freedoms, much like we require missiles and bombs.

However, lawsuits, much like missiles and bombs, can have devastating consequences.

We try not to resort to utilizing our missiles.

Perhaps we should view lawyers in a similar light.

John Stossel authored “Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.”