Ozdachs - 4:32 pm on May 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have both opted-out of the settlement and have mailed a letter of objection to the court.

This proposed $90 million settlement is bad because:

* The settlement requires certification of a statement which is burdensome for small advertisers. The huge number of advertisers like me and my clients who do not have the resources to read their web logs and determine the percentage of fraudulent clicks are put in the untenable position of either foregoing the recovery of damages or else signing their name to a speculative statement which they cannot defend.

Victims of fraud should not be made to commit perjury to receive compensation.

* The proposed 33% payment to the plaintiff attorneys -- $30 million! -- is inappropriate. The attorney's clearly are not motivated to get the best result for the members of the class. Instead, they are blinded by financial riches to accept this inappropriate settlement and thereby securing their fee.

On the other hand:

* This settlement makes great sense for Google. If people don't opt out, then Google has settled with all claimants world-wide for a relatively paltry amount.
* The settlement makes sense for lawyers, because $30 million is a nice payday.
* The settlement makes sense for the lead plaintiffs and large advertisers. The settlement terms is crafted so that big business like them who have the ability to prove fraud get their money back.

The settlement does not make sense for small businesses who have been defrauded but who don't have the IT staff to read the web logs and analyze the extent of their losses.

I believe smaller businesses should opt-out of the current arrangement, for the principle if for no other reason. It's doubtful that we'll ever recover much. However, in the greater scheme of things our losses are not great and it makes no sense to participate in a large-company scheme that uses the legal system to make only big retailers and their lawyers rich.