The tippy Explorer case against Ford Motor Company is getting a lot of ink because of the settlement: The lawyers got millions and the class members got coupons worth nothing to most. But what's so unusual about that?
The real story here is that this lawsuit did not involve vehicles that rolled over, were damaged, or hurt anyone. If you had a car that did, you couldn't get in this case if you tried!
No, this one was filed on behalf of people whom the lawyers claimed "suffered" a loss in Explorer resale value due to news of rollover problems.
Plaintiffs' lawyers justified the coupon deal as the best they could do for their "clients." It's hard to believe these lawyers launched a suit like this really believing they would achieve anything net positive for the class members. In fact, it would be entirely logical (and appropriate?) for a follow-up class action against the plaintiffs' lawyers in this case, alleging that their lawsuit and its publicity caused a further reduction in the resale value of Explorers.
We await these lawyers' next foray into "value diminution" litigation. The opportunities are endless. Say I bought a 2005 Snorecedes and a subsequent Consumer Reports says the 2006 model makes mine loud and polluting in comparison. Kicks my trade-in value in the teeth. Class action! Other examples come to mind. But why give the lawyers more ideas?