A recent court filing reveals a heated legal battle over the approval of a class action settlement related to a significant data breach affecting millions of consumers. On September 18, 2024, Amy Wynne filed a complaint in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division One, challenging the trial court's approval of a settlement involving Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi of America LLC, and Sanctus LLC d/b/a Shift Digital.
The lawsuit stems from an alleged data breach that compromised the personal information of approximately 3.17 million consumers. The plaintiffs accused Volkswagen and its affiliates of failing to secure sensitive customer data adequately. The case consolidated several class action lawsuits, including Wynne v. Audi of America, LLC and Villalobos v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., into In Re: Volkswagen Data Incident Litigation.
Wynne initially filed her lawsuit in June 2021 in Marin County Superior Court before it was moved to the Northern District of California. Her complaint cited violations under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Subsequently, other lawsuits were filed in New Jersey and later consolidated with Wynne’s case. By November 2021, all cases were transferred back to Northern California.
The parties agreed to mediation in May 2022 and reached a preliminary settlement agreement after extensive negotiations. The proposed settlement required Volkswagen to pay $3.5 million distributed across three tiers based on the type and sensitivity of exposed information: $2 million for California residents whose sensitive personal information (SPI) was compromised (Tier 1), $800,000 for non-California residents with SPI exposure (Tier 2), and $700,000 for those whose less sensitive personal information (PI) was compromised (Tier 3).
Despite these efforts, Wynne objected to the settlement terms during final approval proceedings. She argued that the court lacked sufficient information to evaluate the fairness and adequacy of the settlement properly. Wynne contended that her interests as a class member were not adequately represented by existing plaintiffs and sought both mandatory and permissive intervention rights.
The trial court denied Wynne’s motion for intervention on grounds that she could protect her interests by opting out or objecting to the settlement—options she indeed exercised by filing objections rather than opting out. The court found no compelling evidence suggesting inadequate representation by existing plaintiffs like Ricardo Villalobos who shared identical claims under CCPA.
Ultimately, despite Wynne’s appeals and objections citing procedural inadequacies and perceived unfairness in monetary allocations among subclasses, the trial court granted final approval for the settlement. It concluded that extensive discovery had been conducted; experienced counsel had negotiated at arm's length; risks associated with further litigation justified compromise; and only four class members objected.
Wynne’s subsequent motion to vacate this judgment was also denied as it reiterated previously rejected arguments without presenting new substantial evidence or legal basis warranting reconsideration.
The presiding judges include Langhorne Wilson J., Banke Acting P.J., Siggins J., under Case ID A166931/A168736.