It reminds me of a Nintendo settlement back in the 80's.
Plaintiffs got a $5 coupon for the future purchase of any NES game, which cost at least $20 each.
Isn't there some kind of rule that settlements can't by their nature force plaintiffs to become repeat customers?
I was reading the same Nintendo factoid recently, in some NES-20th-anniverary coverage.
Don't know if there's a rule about it, but there should be.
Trouble is, the lawyers make out like bandits, regardless of the settlement details. So, it's in their interest to convince their clients that this is the best they can do and to settle the thing.
You all might take an interest in a weblog, written by a pair of lawyers, that covers this sort of thing. Both Walter Olson and Ted Frank (yeah, the same one) agree that the courts system should not be a winning lottery ticket for plaintiffs or their scumbag lawyers, who sue the deep pockets without regard to the consequences for the rest of us.
http://www.overlawyered.com/
(I'm not a paid shill, just a shill.)