ashley madison

It does not come as a surprise to academic experts in legal strategy that the parent company of the Ashley Madison dating website wanted to settle the well-publicized case. In fact, William H.J. Hubbard, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, said the settlement was probably inevitable in this case.

In a highly publicized, class action lawsuit involving sensitive information for all parties involved, settlement is basically a foregone conclusion, Hubbard told Legaltech News. The defendant wants to settle because the data breach was a PR nightmare, and it wants to put the fiasco in the rearview mirror. The plaintiffs and class members presumably want as much confidentiality as possible, too, for obvious reasons. And the lawyers representing the class, who wield tremendous discretion and influence, given that the class is a diffuse group of individuals whose stakes are small relative to the case as a whole, want to make sure they get paid, and a class action settlement will inevitably provide for that.

The settlement relates to the class action lawsuit filed following a data breach and release of personal information from customers of Ashley Madison, an online dating website owned and operated by Ruby Life Inc.

As part of the proposed settlement of the pending case in Missouri, Ruby denies any wrongdoing and the parties have agreed to the proposed settlement in order to avoid the uncertainty, expense, and inconvenience associated with continued litigation, and believe that the proposed settlement agreement is in the best interest of Ruby and its customers, the company said in a statement.

A major benefit of settlement is that it keeps sensitive or embarrassing information that otherwise might be produced in court documents or at trial from becoming part of the public record, Hubbard explained. Even when the embarrassing information is already in the public domain, ongoing litigation can have the effect of keeping an event in the news, thereby magnifying concerns about the rehashing of embarrassing information.

Hubbard said context is important in the decision to settle. For example, preserving a reputation for toughness or for standing on principle may mean refusing to settle, especially in well-publicized cases. But when embarrassing material is on the line, or when a lawsuit arises out of a public relations fiasco for the defendant, as in this case, I would say settlement becomes almost imperative, Hubbard said.

Jon Mills, director of the Center for Governmental Responsibility at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law who is also counsel at Boies Schiller Flexner, added the case is obviously very high profile and there was a lot of incentive to settle. By settling, it also may help prevent more public display of negligence, he said.