The Biggest Class Action Settlements of 2025

$140M Settlement Finalized Over NYC Taxi License Suspensions

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Case Reference: 1:06-cv-04991

Represented by: ​Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC, Law Office of Daniel L. Ackman, Donahue Goldberg & Herzog LLP

Thousands of New York taxi and for-hire vehicle drivers have reached a landmark $140 million settlement with the city, concluding a federal class action that challenged the Taxi and Limousine Commission’s (TLC) long-standing practice of suspending or revoking driver licenses based solely on arrests, often without subsequent convictions. The lawsuit, filed in 2006, alleged that the TLC’s procedures violated drivers’ constitutional rights by denying them fair hearings. The settlement applies to approximately 20,000 drivers whose licenses were impacted between 2003 and 2020, with individual payouts based on the length of each suspension—up to $36,000 for those suspended for over a year.

The legal challenge gained traction after a 2019 federal appellate ruling found the TLC's policy unconstitutional. Many drivers, like Bakhit Garim, suffered profound personal and financial consequences, often losing their only source of income. Garim, who lost his license following an arrest that never resulted in a conviction, is now homeless but sees the settlement as a turning point: “When I get the money, at least I’ll support my family [with] dignity.” Bhairavi Desai, head of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, called the resolution “a semblance of justice” for workers “presumed guilty” and left without recourse.

$109M Settlement Over Minnesota Property Tax Seizures

Court: Ramsey County District Court

Case Reference: Sharon Sporleder v. State of Minnesota, et al.

Represented by:  Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, ​Guin, Stokes & Evans, LLC, Teske Law, PLLP

Minnesota has agreed to a $109 million class action settlement to compensate property owners who lost their properties due to unpaid property taxes without receiving the surplus value from the forfeitures. The lawsuit alleged that the state violated owners' property rights by retaining the excess value of forfeited properties, which in many cases far exceeded the unpaid tax debt. Eligible claimants include individuals with ownership or security interests in properties forfeited between 2012 and 2023 in Hennepin and St. Louis counties, and between 2016 and 2023 in other counties. The state denied wrongdoing but agreed to resolve the claims to avoid further litigation.

Under the settlement terms, class members may receive up to 90% of their property’s surplus value at the time of forfeiture, plus interest. The valuation can be determined through sale prices, assessor estimates, or appraisals. Former lienholders and mineral rights holders are also eligible for compensation, with specific payout structures based on lien value or a fixed amount per parcel.

$100M Google AdWords Overcharge Settlement Reached

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Reference: Rick Woods v. Google Inc.

Represented by: ​Nix Patterson, LLP, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP

Google has agreed to pay $100 million to resolve a long-running class action lawsuit that accused the company of overcharging businesses that used its AdWords advertising platform. The plaintiffs alleged that Google misled advertisers by improperly applying features like Smart Pricing and distributing ads outside of targeted geographic zones, which inflated advertising costs. The settlement follows years of contentious litigation during which plaintiffs accused Google of withholding key data and failing to comply with court-ordered discovery obligations. U.S. Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd previously directed Google to produce descriptions and details of relevant database fields—orders the plaintiffs claimed the company routinely ignored.

Lead plaintiff Woods and his attorney alleged that Google engaged in discovery misconduct by concealing vital click data and omitting a “secret field” that controlled Smart Pricing. According to the plaintiffs, this field enabled Google to toggle pricing adjustments at will, significantly impacting advertiser charges. The motion for sanctions accused Google of deceptive practices, including submitting incomplete and broken sample reports, and making demonstrably false statements about its data capabilities. Although Google denied any wrongdoing, the $100 million settlement brings the dispute to a close and provides compensation to businesses affected by the alleged overcharges.

Apple Settles Siri Privacy Lawsuit for $95M

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Reference: Fumiko Lopez v. Apple, Inc.

Represented by: ​Lexington Law Group, Lowey Dannenberg PC, Scott & Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, Wood Law Firm

Apple Inc. has agreed to a $95 million cash settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging that its Siri voice assistant unlawfully recorded users’ private conversations and shared them with third parties. Filed in federal court in Oakland, California, the case claimed Siri was activated unintentionally by users, leading to private discussions being captured and, in some instances, resulting in targeted advertisements. Plaintiffs pointed to examples where offhand mentions of products or medical treatments seemingly led to related ad content. The proposed class includes users of Siri-enabled devices from September 17, 2014, to December 31, 2024 — the period during which Siri’s “Hey, Siri” feature allegedly contributed to the privacy violations.

While Apple denies any wrongdoing, the settlement offers up to $20 per eligible device, potentially reaching tens of millions of affected users. The plaintiffs’ attorneys may seek up to $28.5 million in legal fees, plus $1.1 million in expenses, from the settlement fund. The case, Lopez et al. v. Apple Inc., awaits final approval from U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White. This litigation marks a significant moment in consumer privacy claims tied to voice-activated technology and runs parallel to a similar, ongoing lawsuit against Google’s Voice Assistant in the same federal district.

JBS Agrees to $83.5M Deal in Cattle Price Suppression Case

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Case Reference: MDL No. 3031

Represented by: ​Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Robins Kaplan LLP

JBS USA has agreed to pay $83.5 million to settle claims brought by a proposed class of cattle ranchers alleging that the meatpacking giant conspired with other top beef producers to suppress the prices paid for feeder cattle. Filed in Minnesota federal court, the motion for preliminary approval describes the settlement as the product of extensive, arms-length negotiations facilitated by mediator Miles Ruthberg. The ranchers’ legal team noted that after years of litigation, they entered settlement talks with a thorough understanding of their case’s legal merits and challenges.

The settlement is a key development in a broader multidistrict litigation (MDL) concerning price-fixing allegations against the so-called “Big Four” meat producers: JBS, Tyson Foods, Cargill, and National Beef Packing. Although the JBS agreement would resolve one of six consolidated lawsuits in the MDL, claims against the remaining companies continue. Parallel cases have encountered hurdles, including a recent dismissal of a separate complaint due to lack of evidence showing direct harm to plaintiffs. That setback has fueled the defense’s push to limit further amendments by the ranchers, underscoring the ongoing complexity of the MDL proceedings.

$80M Settlement Over Grab’s Misleading Incentive Disclosures

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Case Reference: 1:22-cv-02189

Represented by: ​Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Bernstein Liebhard LLP

Grab Holdings has agreed to an $80 million settlement to resolve a securities class action lawsuit brought by investors who alleged the company misled them about the financial impact of its aggressive incentive spending strategy. The lawsuit followed a sharp 37.3% drop in Grab’s stock price on March 3, 2022, after the company disclosed a staggering 44% decline in quarterly revenue and a $1.1 billion loss—primarily driven by increased driver and consumer incentives. Investors claimed Grab’s public statements failed to adequately disclose how this spending would undermine profitability, particularly in the lead-up to its December 2021 debut on NASDAQ via a SPAC merger with Altimeter Growth.

Promoted as Southeast Asia’s “superapp” offering ride-hailing, food delivery, and digital payments, Grab faced mounting financial scrutiny as its incentive costs surged more than 90% in 2021 amid a pandemic-related driver shortage. These expenditures led to negative revenue in some business segments, contradicting the company’s narrative of stable growth. Investors argued that Grab’s omissions painted an overly optimistic picture of its revenue model. After years of litigation, the parties reached a resolution in January 2025, marking a significant recovery for investors impacted by the post-merger stock collapse.

MGM Data Breach Lawsuit Ends in $45M Consumer Settlement

Court: U.S. District Court, District of Nevada

Case Reference: In re MGM Resorts International Data Breach Litigation

Represented by: ​​Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC, Berger Montague PC, Gibbs Mura, A Law Group, Cohen & Malad LLP, Hausfeld LLP, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.

MGM Resorts International has agreed to pay $45 million to settle a class action lawsuit stemming from two major data breaches that occurred in July 2019 and September 2023. The breaches exposed a wide array of sensitive consumer data, including Social Security numbers, driver’s license and passport details, military IDs, and contact information. Plaintiffs allege that MGM failed to implement adequate cybersecurity measures to prevent the unauthorized access, which affected guests across its global portfolio of hotels and casinos. Although MGM denies any wrongdoing, the company agreed to the settlement to resolve the claims and avoid prolonged litigation.

Eligible class members—those who received breach notifications from MGM—are entitled to tiered cash payments based on the type of information compromised: $75 for Social Security or military ID numbers, $50 for passport or driver’s license data, and $20 for basic personal identifiers like names and birth dates. Additionally, all class members may claim up to $15,000 in documented out-of-pocket losses, including costs related to fraud, identity theft, or credit monitoring. The settlement also includes one year of complimentary financial account monitoring with identity theft protection and up to $1 million in insurance coverage.

Conclusion

These major class action settlements of 2025 reflect a growing wave of legal accountability across sectors ranging from government policy to tech and finance. Each case—whether it involved wrongful license suspensions, privacy violations, property forfeitures, or deceptive business practices—spotlights how class actions can empower individuals to challenge powerful institutions and secure meaningful compensation. As courts approve these multimillion-dollar agreements, they not only bring long-awaited justice to affected plaintiffs but also send a clear signal about the importance of transparency, due process, and consumer protection in today’s legal and economic landscape.

For insight into 2024's most significant class action cases, see our Top Class Action Payouts of 2024.