Attorneys representing genetic testing company 23andMe will convene on Wednesday in Napa Valley for mediation with approximately 20 lawyers from various firms who have filed class action lawsuits against the company. These lawsuits accuse 23andMe of allowing sensitive genetic information to be hacked and sold on the dark web.
23andMe has indicated that Wednesday’s mediation might lead to a global settlement of the ongoing litigation. However, the plaintiffs’ firm Edelson has raised concerns, calling such a pre-emptive settlement a potential disaster for the millions of affected customers.
In a recent court filing, Edelson requested U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco to appoint it as the lead firm for the litigation, despite the cases not being consolidated yet. Edelson’s motion is driven by fears that the mediation could result in an inadequate settlement that fails to address the severe impact of the data breach, including the targeting of Jewish and Chinese customers on the dark web.
23andMe has petitioned the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate all cases under a single federal judge. Currently, most of the three dozen class action complaints related to the data breach are filed in federal court in San Francisco. Lawyers from Greenberg Traurig, representing 23andMe, have requested a stay on the 30 cases already before Judge Chen, pending the panel’s decision on consolidation expected by March.
Edelson argues that without a unified front and an appointed lead counsel, the mediation is likely to be unproductive and may lead to a subpar settlement. The firm is concerned that a fragmented plaintiffs’ group will not adequately represent the class’s interests.
So far, neither 23andMe nor other plaintiffs’ firms have formally responded to Edelson’s motion. However, prominent class action firms involved in the litigation, such as Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Stueve Siegel Hanson, have expressed agreement with Edelson’s stance. They believe that mediation should not proceed until a lead counsel is appointed to ensure a coordinated and effective approach.
Stuart Davidson of Robbins Geller noted, “We understand Edelson’s position and agree that mediation before appointing leadership is premature and chaotic.” Robbins Geller plans to also seek a leadership role in the litigation.
The plaintiffs’ firms are divided on when lead counsel should be appointed, with some pushing for immediate appointment by Judge Chen and others preferring to wait for the MDL panel’s decision.
The scheduled mediation was first disclosed in a January 19 brief from 23andMe. The company’s legal team did not respond to inquiries about Edelson’s allegations of a potential quick settlement.
Edelson’s motion, while unlikely to be granted before the mediation, signals its intent to vigorously oppose any settlement that fails to fully address the harms suffered by 23andMe’s customers. Jay Edelson, founder of the firm, emphasized the need for accountability, stating, “Class action lawsuits should hold companies accountable, not serve as an easy escape from consequences.”
As the mediation approaches, the legal community watches closely to see if a resolution can be reached or if Edelson’s concerns will prompt further legal battles.