Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit opposes a settlement reached in a class action lawsuit against Pelephone, after allegedly charging money for voicemail service.
As part of the settlement, it was agreed that the company would provide the plaintiffs with benefits in the amount of NIS 30 each and a total value of NIS 1.6 million, out of NIS 3.8 million that was allegedly illegally collected from them.
It is also stipulated that the number of benefits will be limited, so that not all members of the group will receive the benefit but only those who apply first.
It was further agreed that the compensation to the applicant and the fee for the attorney general's attorney will amount to NIS 320,000 when the division between them is determined by them.
But Mandelblit filed his objection in the Central District Court.
He believes that it is not possible to determine that the settlement is proper and fair to the members of the prosecution group.
The company charged for free
First, in his view, the compensation in the "first come, first served" method is in clear contradiction to the basic principles of the Class Actions Law, since it is a matter of distributing compensation "on an arbitrary and unequal basis, which also discriminates between populations that can apply to society more quickly. ", So according to the Attorney General's arguments in his application to the District Court.
Second, in principle, there is a preference for personal financial relief for each of the group members in the event of unlawful collection, over a benefit in the value of the infringing collection.
Avichai Mandelblit.
He also objected to attorneys' fees, Photo: Gideon Markovich
The lawsuit was filed for violation of the provisions of the contract agreement with Pelephone's customers, for voicemail service.
According to the plaintiffs, the company was not entitled to charge for the service in the first two years of the agreement, but began charging before the end of this period.
It was also alleged that Pelephone acted unilaterally, without obtaining the prior consent of the subscribers, and caused the subscribers to be misled.
Difficulty deciding the matter
Mandelblit sought to clarify that at this stage the factual disputes between the parties have not yet been clarified.
In his view, before determining whether the action at all deserves to be class action or not, the court is not entitled to approve the settlement.
"In our case," the ombudsman clarified, "there are factual disputes between the parties regarding the allegations arising from the request for approval.
Therefore, the Attorney General does not have the tools to determine whether in the circumstances of the case Pelephone disclosed to consumers the terms of the transaction and the payments that will be required to pay. "
In addition, the parties recommended to the court that the compensation to the chief plaintiff and the fee for his attorney be NIS 320,000, which will be divided according to what was agreed between them, without the consent being brought before the court.
This decision angered Mandelblit, who ruled that "this confidential agreement is contrary to the rationale underlying the determination of fees and remuneration. For, as is well known, the court is responsible for determining remuneration and fees, and the parties are only allowed to attach a recommendation."
