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.