PACER $125M Settlement Over Alleged Excess Court Record Access Fees

The PACER $125M Settlement Over Alleged Excess Court Record Access Fees settlement offers $125M in total, with individual payouts of TBD to eligible claimants who paid fees to access documents or records through the pacer (public access to court electronic records) system. The filing deadline has not yet been announced. Proof of purchase is required.
Deadline: No deadline specified
Total amount allocated for all claims
Estimated amount per eligible claim
No traditional claim form is described; eligibility is based on PACER billing records, and payments are expected to be sent automatically after the appeal. To ensure receipt, class members may need to verify identity and update/confirm their current mailing address on the official settlement website.
Settlement Summary
PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) is the federal judiciary’s online portal for searching and downloading filings from U.S. federal courts, widely used by journalists, lawyers, researchers, and the public. Although PACER charges per-page fees, those charges are supposed to be limited by federal law to what’s necessary to reimburse the judiciary for providing access to electronic records—reflecting the broader principle that court records are presumptively public even when distributed digitally. The lawsuit was filed because plaintiffs alleged the government collected more than those allowable “costs of providing access,” using PACER revenue to fund other judiciary projects rather than strictly the system’s access-related expenses. The proposed $125 million settlement (covering fees paid between April 21, 2010, and April 21, 2016) is significant because it treats PACER’s pricing as a legal compliance issue—not just a policy debate—and it reinforces that user fees for public information can’t become a general revenue stream; eligible users are expected to receive automatic payments based on PACER billing records after appeals conclude, generally capped at the lesser of $350 or what they paid, with possible pro-rated additions for heavier users. More broadly, the case sits in a growing set of disputes over “user fees” for public-facing digital services, where agencies and courts must show a clear link between what they charge and what it actually costs to provide the service under governing statutes. Similar fights have played out around public records access at the state level and around other government databases, and PACER has long drawn criticism from transparency advocates who argue that per-page pricing chills oversight and reporting; this settlement may increase pressure for tighter adherence to the fee-limitation statute, greater public auditing of how access fees are spent, and renewed momentum for reforms that reduce or eliminate paywalls around basic court documents.
Entities Involved
Related Topics
Eligibility Requirements
- Paid fees to access documents or records through the PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) system
- Payments were made during the class period: April 21, 2010 to April 21, 2016
- Is identifiable through PACER billing records (payments are expected to be issued automatically after the appeal is resolved)
- Has current/accurate mailing address on file to receive an automatically issued check
Featured Investigations
Stay Updated
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest settlement updates and news.
Important Notice About Filing Claims
Submitting false information in a settlement claim is considered perjury and will result in your claim being rejected. Fraudulent claims harm legitimate class members and may result in legal consequences.
If you are unsure about your eligibility for this settlement, please visit the official settlement administrator’s website using the link provided above. Review the eligibility criteria carefully before submitting a claim.
Class Action Champion is an independent information resource and is not affiliated with any settlement administrator, law firm, or court. We provide settlement information as a service to help connect eligible class members with legitimate settlements.
Related Settlements
Anne Arundel Dermatology Data Breach Settlement $2.4 Million for Patient Info Security Claims
Anne Arundel Dermatology P.A. agreed to pay a $2.4 million settlement to resolve allegations that a data breach exposed patients’ personal and health information. The incident occurred between Feb. 14, 2025, and May 13, 2025. Eligible class members are people in the U.S. who provided or whose information the clinic collected, received, or possessed on or before Dec. 9, 2025.
Absolute Dental Group $3.3 Million Settlement for 2025 Data Breach Losses
Absolute Dental Group LLC agreed to pay a $3.3 million class action settlement over a potential 2025 data breach affecting consumers’ personal information. The incident occurred between Feb. 19, 2025 and March 5, 2025, when unauthorized access may have exposed data. Eligible U.S. residents who received notice from Absolute Dental about the incident may claim up to $5,000 for documented losses and may also receive a pro rata cash payment, with certain California residents eligible for an enhanced amount.
Travelers PIP Settlement for New Jersey Claims Up to 70 or More for Deductible Reductions
A class action settlement totaling at least the net settlement fund (with attorneys’ fees up to $275,000 and service awards of $7,500) resolves allegations that Travelers and St. Paul improperly reduced New Jersey PIP coverage limits by counting deductibles and copayments, causing some insureds to receive less than the PIP benefits available. Eligible policyholders (and certain heirs/representatives) who received final PIP payments between April 14, 2017 and April 1, 2023 that were within $3,000 of their policy limit—but not the full limit—may receive an automatic $70 and possibly additional compensation.
MUBI $1.6 Million Settlement for California Auto-Renewal Without Notice
California subscribers of the MUBI streaming service may be eligible for a $1.6 million class action settlement over alleged auto-renewal charges without adequate notice or proper consent. The claims cover sign-ups beginning April 1, 2021 and auto-renewals occurring through May 31, 2025, as described in Cesar Cejudo v. MUBI, Inc. To be eligible, claimants must have been California residents whose subscription renewed at least once and who did not receive a full refund of renewal charges.
