Class Action Certified for Pacer Users

January 25, 2017 by

A class of Pacer users was certified by a Washington, D.C. federal judge this week.  The suit had been filed by three nonprofit groups alleging the government is illegally making a profit on the court records service. 

The judge ruled the three nonprofits could adequately represent all PACER users.

The three nonprofits are the National Veterans Legal Services Program, the National Consumer Law Center and Alliance for Justice.  U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle granted the motion for class certification in the suit alleging PACER’s fees violated the E-Government Act.  The suit seeks a refund of any overcharges.

The E-Government Act provides that PACER users should only be charged “to the extent necessary” in order to reimburse the government for the “direct cost” of making the documents available.  In the complaint, plaintiffs alleged that the fees have increased twice since 2002.  The plaintiffs alleged that the judiciary spent most of the revenue from PACER not on the system itself, but on courtroom technology, websites for jurors and other elements of the judiciary, noting that in 2012, the judicial system spent $12.1 million of PACER revenues on PACER itself, and more than $29 million on courtroom technology, according to the complaint.

The case is National Veterans Legal Services Program et al. v. United States of America, case number 1:16-cv-00745, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

 

Steve Larson
An experienced trial lawyer who handles both hourly and contingent fee cases, Steve has expertise in class actions, consumer cases, antitrust litigation, securities litigation, corporate disputes, intellectual property disputes, unfair competition claims, employment matters, and disputes involving family wealth. Steve regularly represents individuals and businesses in federal and state court and has obtained class-wide recovery in multiple class actions. A veteran practitioner, Steve's clients value his creative approach to resolving complex litigation matters.

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this blog does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. We make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this blog.