Over the past year, scrutiny of class action claims administrators has risen sharply.
Getty
Last year, reports surfaced that class action claims administrators were secretly pocketing vendor rebates tied to consumer payouts. A new court filing shows that one major administrator has agreed to stop taking them.
The filing is from a small data breach class action lawsuit against Kansas City medical practice Clay Platte Family Medicine, with a $1 million settlement fund. On May 7, 2026, Philadelphia-based Angeion, one of the country’s largest claims administrators, agreed that it won’t take rebates or discounts from vendors, banks or other financial institutions in the Clay Platte case. It appears to be one of the first public examples of a major claims administrator agreeing to forgo those payments. Representatives for Angeion, which is owned by private equity firm Renovus Capital, didn’t respond to our requests for comment.
Before the spring of 2025, few attorneys or judges were aware that the claims administrators in charge of doling out class action rewards to consumers were pocketing money from fintech card issuers like Blackhawk and Tremendous. Few understood the breakage that resulted from the digital prepaid debit cards used in payouts. (The breakage occurred when many recipients didn’t use their virtual cards and had their money clawed back through monthly inactivity fees.) Industry insiders alleged that banks were involved in questionable payments, too: administrators quietly took a cut of the interest income earned on settlement funds while the money sat in an account, waiting to be distributed.
Forbes covered these back-room dealings in an in-depth story in May 2025. Multiple lawsuits followed, targeting four major settlement administrators, two banks and three fintech payments companies, alleging offenses like fraudulent concealment and conspiracy. Famed lawyer David Boies filed one of those lawsuits, which were later consolidated into multi-district litigation in Washington, D.C. Last year, an Angeion spokesperson called the initial lawsuit filed against it “meritless,” and a Blackhawk spokesperson said it was compliant with all applicable laws.
The controversy has changed how plaintiffs attorneys scrutinize payout proposals. Over the past year, according to an executive at a claims administrator, attorneys have been asking far more questions about proposed digital payout methods and whether administrators receive rebates.
Have a story tip? Contact Jeff Kauflin at [email protected] or on Signal at jeff.273.
The Clay Platte case shows what that scrutiny can look like in practice. According to the May 7 court filing, when Angeion was originally bidding to win the project, the administrator said it sometimes accepts rebates and discounts from vendors and financial institutions. Then last month, U.S. District Judge Stephen Bough ordered that Angeion publicly disclose its fees, including rebates and other financial rewards.
In discussions between the plaintiffs’ attorneys and Angeion, Angeion argued that its business relationships with some financial institutions can help to secure better commercial terms for settlement fund accounts, which could lead to more money for class members. The administrator said virtual prepaid cards come with rebates that can offset administrative costs relative to other payout methods and that the rebates don’t reduce the amount of money disbursed to class members.
Still, the plaintiffs’ attorneys insisted on more safeguards “to eliminate even the appearance of any improper benefit or undisclosed financial incentives.” The resulting agreement stipulates several conditions. When choosing the bank that will custody the settlement fund, Angeion agreed to solicit bids “from multiple reputable banking institutions, including at least two institutions with which Angeion has no existing commercial relationship.” The plaintiffs’ attorneys will review those bids and choose the bank “based solely on the best interests of the Settlement Class.”
No prepaid cards will be used in the distribution–only paper checks and digital methods that lack rebate or incentive schemes, such as Venmo and Zelle. Most notably, Angeion agreed that it “will not receive any rebates, awards, credits, and/or financial compensation from any vendor, subcontractor, or bank in connection with this administration.”
Jay Edelson, founder and CEO of prominent plaintiffs’ law firm Edelson PC, says the agreement is revealing. “It is startling that class counsel had to negotiate a ‘no kickback’ clause into their agreement with Angeion. The clause reads similarly to what you would negotiate with a defendant in a lawsuit, not someone you are hiring to be a fiduciary of the class.”
Edelson adds that many other issues in class action payouts should be studied closely. For instance, claims rates–the number of consumers who respond and obtain their award from a class action after being contacted by a settlement administrator–are notoriously low. Class attorneys often turn a blind eye to that, Edelson says.
Though the Clay Platte class action is a single, small case, the May 7 filing offers a public template for rebate restrictions and fee disclosures. Other judges and plaintiffs attorneys may now push for similar concessions.
Read the full article here