Midland Credit Management Lawsuit: 2026 Case Guide

Quick Answer Box

• What the case is: Midland Credit Management faces ongoing federal class action litigation and individual FDCPA claims for alleged unlawful debt collection practices, including robo-signed affidavits, false statements in collection lawsuits, and credit reporting violations.
• Who qualifies: Consumers who were contacted, sued, or had their credit reports affected by Midland Credit Management or its affiliated entities, Midland Funding LLC and Encore Capital Group, within the applicable statute of limitations.
• What it may be worth: Individual FDCPA claims carry statutory damages up to $1,000 per violation. Class action recoveries have produced per-plaintiff payouts ranging from $50 to $500, with named plaintiffs receiving more. Actual damages, attorney fees, and FCRA claims can increase total recovery significantly.

Case Snapshot

Introduction

Midland Credit Management is one of the largest debt buyers in the United States, and it is also one of the most sued. In 2026, consumers across multiple federal circuits are pursuing claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and parallel state statutes.

The company's parent, Encore Capital Group, paid $42 million in civil penalties to the CFPB in 2015 alone. That enforcement action was not a conclusion. It became a legal template for plaintiffs' attorneys across the country.

Worth reading: Minecraft Lawsuit 2026: Class Action Claims Explained

The litigation covers a wide range of alleged violations. Robo-signed affidavits, inflated debt balances, improper credit reporting, and aggressive collection lawsuits filed without adequate documentation are the central theories.

If Midland Credit Management has contacted you, sued you, or appeared on your credit report, understanding the litigation landscape is the first step before any legal decision.

Midland Credit Management Lawsuit 2026: Where the Litigation Stands Now

Midland Credit Management faces an active docket of consumer protection lawsuits across multiple federal districts as of 2026. These are not remnants of older litigation cycles. New individual and class claims continue to be filed each month.

The FDCPA's one-year statute of limitations means violations from 2024 and 2025 remain actionable today. Courts in California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New York are all actively processing claims.

The litigation in 2026 focuses heavily on two practice areas: the company's use of allegedly deficient affidavits in state court collection suits, and its credit reporting conduct after debts are disputed. Both areas have produced significant case law.

Key 2026 litigation facts:

• Multiple class actions pending in federal court
• CFPB continues supervisory oversight under 2015 consent order
• State attorneys general in Texas and Florida have maintained independent enforcement tracks
• Arbitration clause challenges remain a contested procedural issue in class certification

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling FDCPA class actions against debt buyers in 2026 note that the evidentiary record developed in the 2015 CFPB action has proven useful in supporting class-wide discovery requests in current litigation.*

What Is the Midland Credit Management Lawsuit?

The Midland Credit Management lawsuit refers to a sustained body of federal and state litigation targeting the company's debt collection practices. This is not a single case. It is a continuing pattern of legal challenges across jurisdictions.

Midland Credit Management Inc. is a San Diego-based debt buyer. It purchases defaulted consumer debt portfolios at cents on the dollar, then attempts to collect the full balance. The gap between what MCM pays and what it collects is the business model. The lawsuits challenge how the company pursues that collection.

The core legal theory in most cases is that MCM violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692 by using false, deceptive, or misleading representations in its collection communications. Secondary theories involve improper credit reporting under the FCRA and, in Texas and Florida, violations of state-specific statutes.

Primary causes of action:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling these claims point to the FDCPA's fee-shifting provision under § 1692k as a structural advantage, since MCM cannot escape liability for attorney fees by offering a low settlement when the plaintiff's case is strong.*

Midland Credit Management Class Action Lawsuit: Structure and Certification

A Midland Credit Management class action lawsuit consolidates claims from multiple consumers into a single proceeding. Class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires showing that common questions of law or fact predominate.

Courts have certified class actions against debt buyers where the alleged misconduct was systematic, meaning the same form letter, the same affidavit template, or the same credit reporting protocol was applied to thousands of consumers. That systematic quality is what makes MCM a recurring class action defendant.

Certified classes in prior MCM-related litigation have included consumers who received specific form collection letters, consumers against whom MCM filed state court suits using standardized affidavits, and consumers whose credit reports contained errors MCM failed to correct after written dispute.

Class certification requirements for MCM claims:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling these claims point to the challenge of arbitration clause defenses, which MCM has raised in multiple class actions, arguing that consumers signed arbitration agreements that preclude class proceedings.*

Litigation Watch: Class certification remains the central battleground in MCM class actions, and defendants' arbitration clause arguments have succeeded in some circuits while failing in others.

Midland Credit Management FDCPA Lawsuit: The Federal Statute at the Center

The FDCPA lawsuit against Midland Credit Management is grounded in a federal statute passed in 1977 and enforced with increasing aggression since 2010. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 prohibits debt collectors from using false, deceptive, or abusive practices.

Midland Credit Management is categorically a "debt collector" under the FDCPA because it acquires debts after they are already in default. That classification is not disputed. What plaintiffs dispute is whether specific MCM communications and filings comply with the statute's requirements.

The most frequently litigated FDCPA theories against MCM involve representations made in collection letters about interest accrual, the legal status of debts, and the consequences of non-payment. Courts have split on some of these theories, creating active circuit-level litigation.

Most active FDCPA theories in 2026 MCM litigation:

• Misrepresentation of the amount legally owed, including interest and fees not authorized by the original credit agreement
• Collection letters that fail to properly describe the consumer's right to dispute the debt within 30 days under § 1692g
• State court collection suits filed with affidavits that lack personal knowledge, violating § 1692e's prohibition on false statements
• Threatening legal action on time-barred debts where MCM knew the statute of limitations had expired

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling these claims point to the "least sophisticated consumer" standard courts apply when evaluating whether a collection letter is misleading, which gives plaintiffs more latitude than a reasonable consumer standard would.*

Encore Capital Group Lawsuit: The Corporate Parent's Liability

Encore Capital Group Inc., traded on NASDAQ as ECPG, is the ultimate corporate parent of both Midland Credit Management Inc. and Midland Funding LLC. Understanding this corporate structure matters for litigation purposes.

Midland Funding LLC is the entity that formally purchases debt portfolios. Midland Credit Management Inc. is the operating company that actually contacts consumers and files collection suits. Encore Capital Group is the publicly traded parent that controls both entities.

Plaintiffs in some cases have named Encore Capital Group directly, arguing that the corporate parent exercised sufficient control over collection policies to be held jointly liable. Courts have evaluated this theory with varying results.

Encore Capital corporate structure relevant to litigation:

The 2015 CFPB action named Encore Capital Group and its subsidiaries collectively. The consent order required reforms across all three entities. Plaintiffs' attorneys cite those required reforms as evidence of the company's prior knowledge of systematic violations.

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling these claims point to Encore Capital's public SEC filings, which disclose litigation risk as a material factor, as a source of admissions useful in establishing the company's awareness of its exposure.*

Midland Credit Management CFPB Enforcement: The 2015 Consent Order and Its 2026 Consequences

The CFPB entered a consent order against Encore Capital Group and its subsidiaries on September 9, 2015, under Docket No. 2015-CFPB-0022. That order remains the most significant single enforcement action in the company's legal history.

The CFPB found that MCM used robo-signed affidavits in state court collection suits, collected on debts the company knew or should have known were inaccurate, attempted to collect time-barred debts without required disclosures, and failed to honor dispute rights under the FDCPA.

The financial terms were significant. Encore Capital paid $42 million in civil penalties. The company was ordered to pay $79 million in consumer restitution. It also agreed to halt collection on approximately $125 million in accounts that lacked adequate documentation.

2015 CFPB Consent Order Key Terms:

The consent order's required disclosures and documentation standards have become benchmarks in private litigation. Plaintiffs allege that MCM continues to fall short of those standards in specific cases.

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling these claims point to the consent order's detailed factual findings as a roadmap for discovery, since those findings identified specific practices that MCM agreed, at least implicitly, were problematic.*

Litigation Watch: The CFPB consent order's findings have been cited repeatedly in private class action filings as evidence of MCM's prior knowledge of the challenged practices, which strengthens arguments for willful violations and enhanced statutory damages.

Midland Credit Management Debt Collection Violations: The Specific Conduct at Issue

Midland Credit Management's alleged debt collection violations span multiple categories of conduct. The company's scale amplifies the impact. MCM is among the highest-volume debt collectors in the country, filing thousands of state court suits annually.

Each category of alleged violation corresponds to specific FDCPA subsections or parallel state law provisions. The breadth of the conduct alleged is what drives class action activity.

Categories of alleged violations in active 2026 litigation:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling these claims point to the volume of state court collection suits MCM files each year as evidence supporting class treatment, since a systemic policy of filing suits with deficient affidavits is unlikely to be an isolated error.*

Midland Credit Management Robo-Signing Lawsuit: Affidavit Fraud in the Courts

The robo-signing lawsuit against Midland Credit Management focuses on a specific practice: the mass execution of court affidavits by employees who lacked personal knowledge of the underlying debt details. This was not a clerical irregularity. It was an industrial-scale process.

In collection suits filed in state courts, MCM employees signed affidavits attesting to facts about individual debt accounts. The CFPB found that many of those affidavit signers had not actually reviewed the account records they were swearing to. Some signed hundreds of affidavits per day.

The legal consequence is significant. An affidavit submitted to a court that lacks personal knowledge is potentially a false statement. Under § 1692e, submitting false statements in connection with debt collection is an FDCPA violation.

Robo-signing litigation timeline:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling these claims point to the CFPB consent order's specific language on affidavit practices as establishing that MCM's internal controls were inadequate, which supports arguments that violations were not bona fide errors under the FDCPA's § 1692k(c) safe harbor.*

Midland Credit Management Lawsuit Who Qualifies: Eligibility Analysis

Eligibility for a Midland Credit Management lawsuit depends on which legal theory applies to a consumer's specific experience. Not every consumer contacted by MCM has a viable claim. The facts of each contact matter.

The threshold question is whether Midland Credit Management is a "debt collector" with respect to the consumer's debt. Because MCM purchases debts already in default, it meets this definition categorically under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) for virtually every consumer it contacts.

On a related note, check out Minecraft Lawsuit 2026: Class Action, Claims and Payouts

The next question is what specific conduct occurred and when. The FDCPA's statute of limitations is one year from the date of the violation. The FCRA's limitations period for private claims is generally two years from discovery of the violation or five years from the date of the violation, whichever is earlier.

Eligibility checklist:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling these claims point to the importance of preserving all written communications from MCM, including envelopes showing the mailing date, since the limitations period can turn on when a letter was sent versus when it was received.*

Litigation Watch: Consumers who were sued by Midland Funding LLC in state court using what plaintiffs allege were robo-signed affidavits represent one of the most clearly defined eligible populations in current MCM litigation.

Midland Credit Management Suing Me: What to Do If You've Been Served

If Midland Credit Management has filed a lawsuit against you, the most important fact is this: you have a right to respond, and failing to respond results in a default judgment. Default judgments give MCM the power to garnish wages and bank accounts.

MCM files collection suits in state courts, typically in small claims or civil court, for balances ranging from a few hundred to several thousand dollars. Many consumers ignore the summons. That is exactly what MCM's collection model anticipates.

An answer filed in state court is not the same as a counterclaim under the FDCPA. Consumers who have defenses or federal claims must consider both the defensive response and any affirmative claims separately.

Immediate steps if served by MCM:

• Review the summons carefully and note the response deadline, which varies by state but is typically 20 to 30 days
• Do not ignore the complaint; a default judgment may follow within weeks
• Request validation of the debt in writing if you have not already done so
• Gather all prior communications from MCM, including letters and call records
• Consult a consumer protection attorney to evaluate both your defense and any counterclaims
• Ask whether MCM can actually prove the chain of title for the debt it claims to own

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling these claims point to MCM's frequent inability to produce the original credit agreement and a complete payment history as a defense strategy, since without those documents, MCM cannot prove the amount owed or that it owns the debt at all.*

Midland Credit Management Lawsuit Texas: State-Level Litigation Framework

Texas law adds a significant layer to federal FDCPA claims against Midland Credit Management. The Texas Debt Collection Act, codified at Texas Finance Code § 392, creates an independent cause of action that Texas consumers can pursue alongside any federal claim.

Texas courts have seen substantial MCM litigation. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston and the Northern District of Texas in Dallas have both processed MCM cases. State district courts across Texas handle the high volume of MCM collection suits filed against individual consumers.

The TDCA's remedies differ from the FDCPA in meaningful ways. It provides for actual damages, statutory damages, court costs, and attorney fees. For intentional violations, it allows recovery of additional damages. The TDCA's limitations period is four years in some formulations, which is longer than the FDCPA's one-year window.

FDCPA vs. Texas TDCA comparison:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling Texas MCM claims point to the TDCA's longer limitations period as an advantage for consumers who discover violations more than a year after they occurred but within four years.*

Midland Credit Management Class Action Texas: Federal Court Proceedings in the Fifth Circuit

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals governs federal litigation in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Its jurisprudence on FDCPA class certification and liability standards shapes how MCM cases are argued in Texas federal courts.

The Fifth Circuit has addressed several debt collection issues relevant to MCM litigation, including the "least sophisticated consumer" standard versus a "reasonable consumer" standard and the requirements for class certification in consumer protection cases. These rulings affect litigation strategy directly.

Federal class actions against MCM in Texas federal courts have addressed MCM's collection letter practices and its state court suit practices. Southern District of Texas courts have granted class certification in some debt buyer cases with sufficiently uniform alleged misconduct.

Active Texas federal venue landscape for MCM claims:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling Fifth Circuit MCM cases point to the need to carefully evaluate which district offers the most favorable class certification precedent, since results have varied across Texas federal courts on key procedural questions.*

Litigation Watch: Texas consumers have a strategic advantage in MCM litigation because they can pursue simultaneous federal FDCPA claims and state TDCA claims, potentially recovering under both statutes and extending their filing window under the longer TDCA limitations period.

Midland Credit Management Lawsuit Florida: Litigation Under the FCCPA

Florida is one of the most active states for Midland Credit Management litigation. Florida's Consumer Collection Practices Act, Florida Statutes § 559.72, provides rights that go beyond federal FDCPA protections in specific ways.

The FCCPA prohibits debt collectors from willfully communicating with a debtor or any member of their family with such frequency as could reasonably be expected to harass. It also prohibits claiming, attempting, or threatening to enforce a debt when the collector knows the debt is not legitimate. These standards capture conduct that might not rise to an FDCPA violation.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Tampa and the Southern District of Florida in Miami have both been active venues for MCM class action filings. Florida's large retiree population makes the state particularly significant for MCM's debt portfolio activity.

FDCPA vs. Florida FCCPA comparison:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling Florida MCM cases point to the FCCPA's two-year limitations period as a material advantage, since Florida consumers have double the time compared to a federal-only FDCPA claim.*

Midland Credit Management Class Action Florida: Middle and Southern District Proceedings

Florida federal courts have processed multiple class action filings against MCM entities. The Middle District of Florida, which covers Tampa, Orlando, and Jacksonville, has seen consistent consumer protection class action activity. The Southern District, covering Miami and Fort Lauderdale, has handled claims tied to MCM's communication practices.

Class certification in Florida federal courts requires the same Rule 23 analysis as other circuits, but the Eleventh Circuit's precedents on predominance and superiority apply. The Eleventh Circuit has been receptive to FDCPA class certification in cases involving standardized form communications.

Consumers in Florida who received specific form letters from MCM, or who were sued in Florida state courts using MCM's standard collection affidavit process, have been identified as potential class members in multiple filings.

Florida class action eligibility indicators:

• Received a collection letter from MCM or Midland Funding LLC within the past two years
• Were sued in Florida county court by Midland Funding LLC
• Had a debt reported to a credit bureau by MCM after filing a written dispute
• Received phone calls from MCM at inconvenient times or after sending a written cease communication request
• Were threatened with legal action by MCM on an account past Florida's applicable statute of limitations

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling Eleventh Circuit MCM class actions point to the circuit's relatively plaintiff-friendly precedent on FDCPA class certification compared to some other circuits, which makes Florida federal court an advantageous forum in some cases.*

Midland Credit Management Settlement Amount: What the Numbers Actually Show

Settlement amounts in Midland Credit Management cases vary considerably depending on whether the claim is individual or class-based, which violations are alleged, and whether actual damages can be documented. The statutory framework sets the ceiling for statutory damages. Actual harm drives the floor higher.

In individual FDCPA claims, the maximum statutory damage award is $1,000 per action, not per violation. Courts have interpreted "per action" to mean per lawsuit, not per letter or phone call. A consumer who received ten illegal letters can still only recover $1,000 in statutory damages in a single federal action.

However, actual damages are uncapped. If MCM's collection activity caused job loss, medical costs, or other documented financial harm, those damages can far exceed the statutory cap. Attorney fees are also awarded separately under § 1692k.

Settlement value ranges by claim type:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling these claims point to the attorney fee provision as the litigation's real economic engine, since a successful plaintiff's attorney can recover fees based on a reasonable hourly rate regardless of how small the statutory damages are, which makes individual FDCPA cases economically viable for experienced consumer attorneys.*

Litigation Watch: The attorney fee-shifting provision under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) means that MCM's litigation cost structure creates settlement incentives even in cases where the consumer's individual damages are modest.

Midland Credit Management Lawsuit Payout: Named Plaintiff vs. Class Member Recovery

The payout structure in a Midland Credit Management class action differs significantly depending on whether a consumer is a named plaintiff or an absent class member. Understanding this distinction matters for any consumer evaluating their options.

Named plaintiffs, also called class representatives, participate actively in the litigation. They sit for depositions, produce documents, and their claims are subject to scrutiny. In exchange, they typically receive an incentive award on top of whatever the class receives. In MCM-related class actions, incentive awards for named plaintiffs have ranged from $2,500 to $10,000 above the class member payout.

For more context, see Tax Rise Lawsuit 2026: Claims, Courts, and Your Options

Absent class members simply receive notice of the settlement, have the option to opt out, and, if they do nothing, receive their pro rata share of the settlement fund. They are bound by the release and cannot sue MCM again on the same claims.

Named plaintiff vs. class member comparison:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling these claims point to the decision to serve as a named plaintiff as a significant one that requires careful evaluation, since it involves real obligations, real risks, and the consumer's personal case becoming the litigation vehicle for everyone else's recovery.*

Midland Credit Management Lawsuit Settlement Deadline: Limitations Periods and Claim Filing Windows

The settlement deadline in any Midland Credit Management lawsuit falls into two distinct categories: the statute of limitations for filing a new claim, and the claims filing deadline in an already-settled class action. These are not the same thing.

For new FDCPA claims, the statute of limitations is one year from the date of the violation. For new FCRA claims, the limitations period is generally two years from the date the plaintiff discovered the violation, or five years from the date the violation occurred, whichever is earlier. For Texas TDCA claims, four years may apply in some circumstances. For Florida FCCPA claims, two years applies.

In a settled class action with a claims administration process, the claims filing deadline is set by the court's approval order. Missing that deadline typically bars recovery, though courts occasionally allow late claims in extraordinary circumstances.

Statute of limitations summary:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling these claims point to the FDCPA's one-year window as a hard deadline that courts rarely extend, making prompt consultation with an attorney essential for consumers who believe they have a claim.*

How to File a Claim Against Midland Credit Management: The Process Explained

Filing a claim against Midland Credit Management follows different procedural paths depending on whether the consumer is joining an existing class action or initiating an individual lawsuit. Both paths require documentation and, for optimal results, legal representation.

For an individual FDCPA or FCRA lawsuit, the consumer or their attorney files a complaint in federal district court. The complaint must identify the specific violation, the statute it violates, and the relief sought. Service of process on MCM follows standard federal rules. MCM typically answers and then engages in early settlement discussions or moves toward discovery.

For an existing class action settlement, the claims process is simpler. The settlement administrator sends notice to potential class members. The notice includes a claims form and a deadline. Filing requires basic information about the consumer's account and contact details.

Individual lawsuit filing steps:

• Gather all MCM communications (letters, call logs, voicemails, credit reports)
• Document the timeline of MCM's contacts and any state court filings against you
• Consult a consumer protection attorney experienced in FDCPA litigation
• Attorney files complaint in federal district court
• Serve MCM through its registered agent (typically CT Corporation System)
• Respond to MCM's answer and engage in discovery or settlement negotiations
• Attend any required hearings or depositions

Class action claims process:

• Receive class notice by mail or email from the settlement administrator
• Review the settlement terms and class definition to confirm you qualify
• Complete and submit the claims form before the stated deadline
• Opt out if you prefer to preserve your right to sue individually
• Object to the settlement if you are a class member who believes the terms are inadequate

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling these claims point to the opt-out decision as strategically significant, since a consumer with strong individual damages may recover far more in an individual suit than their pro rata share of a class settlement, particularly where the class is large.*

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Midland Credit Management lawsuit about in 2026?

The Midland Credit Management lawsuit in 2026 covers ongoing FDCPA and FCRA claims alleging that MCM used false affidavits in state court collection suits, collected on time-barred debts, and made inaccurate credit reporting entries.

Multiple class actions are active in federal courts in California, Texas, Florida, and Illinois.

The 2015 CFPB consent order, Docket No. 2015-CFPB-0022, remains the foundational enforcement record underlying current private litigation.

Who qualifies for a Midland Credit Management class action lawsuit?

Consumers who received collection letters from MCM, were sued in state court by Midland Funding LLC, or had credit report entries from MCM after disputing a debt may qualify.

Eligibility depends on the specific violation alleged and whether the claim falls within the applicable statute of limitations, which is one year under the FDCPA.

A consumer protection attorney can evaluate whether a specific set of facts supports an individual claim, class membership, or both.

How much can I get from a Midland Credit Management settlement?

Individual FDCPA claims carry statutory damages up to $1,000 per action, plus documented actual damages and attorney fees.

Class action members typically receive between $50 and $500 as a pro rata share of the settlement fund.

Named plaintiffs who serve as class representatives have received incentive awards of $2,500 to $10,000 above the class member payout in prior MCM-related class actions.

What should I do if Midland Credit Management is suing me?

Do not ignore the lawsuit. A failure to respond will result in a default judgment, which gives MCM the ability to garnish wages and levy bank accounts.

File a written answer with the state court before the response deadline, which is typically 20 to 30 days from service.

Consult an FDCPA attorney immediately, since the same conduct that forms MCM's collection suit may also support a counterclaim or separate federal lawsuit against MCM.

Is there a deadline to file a claim against Midland Credit Management?

For FDCPA claims, the statute of limitations is one year from the date of the violation. For FCRA claims, the period is generally two years from discovery.

Texas consumers may have four years under the TDCA. Florida consumers have two years under the FCCPA.

For settled class actions with a claims administration process, the court sets a specific claims filing deadline that cannot be missed without extraordinary circumstances.

Does the Midland Credit Management lawsuit apply in Texas and Florida?

Yes. Both Texas and Florida have state consumer protection statutes that parallel and in some ways exceed the FDCPA, giving consumers in those states additional legal tools.

Texas consumers can pursue claims under the Texas Debt Collection Act, Tex. Fin. Code § 392, with a potentially longer limitations period.

Florida consumers can pursue claims under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 559.72, with a two-year limitations period and up to $1,000 per violation in statutory damages.

Closing

Midland Credit Management's litigation record is not ambiguous. The CFPB found systematic violations and extracted $42 million in civil penalties and $79 million in consumer restitution. Private litigation has continued on the same legal theories ever since.

Consumers who have been contacted, sued, or reported to credit bureaus by MCM within the past one to two years should evaluate whether their specific experience falls within an actionable legal theory. The one-year FDCPA window moves quickly.

The next concrete step is consulting a consumer protection attorney who handles FDCPA and FCRA cases. Many handle these matters on a contingency fee basis precisely because the statute shifts attorney fees to the defendant when the plaintiff prevails.

A closely related topic: Class Action Lawsuit List: Active Cases & Payouts 2026