Lawyers who reached a $2.8 billion settlement with Blue Cross Blue Shield are seeking a portion of legal fees from other attorneys who opted out of the deal to pursue independent lawsuits. Lead attorneys for the settling class filed a request with a federal judge in Alabama to mandate that a percentage of any future settlements or judgments won by the opt-out plaintiffs be set aside for them. The class counsel argued that those who opted out are benefiting from their 12 years of litigation without performing independent work.
The legal dispute follows a 2025 court approval of a nationwide class-action settlement involving approximately 3 million health providers. The original 2012 lawsuit alleged that Blue Cross and its affiliates violated antitrust laws by dividing the United States into exclusive geographic territories to avoid competition, which the plaintiffs claimed inflated insurance costs and lowered reimbursements. While Blue Cross denied wrongdoing, it agreed to the multi-billion dollar payment and business practice modifications.
The class attorneys, led by the firm Whatley Kallas, proposed a 12.5% set-aside fee on any recoveries obtained by the opt-out providers. They reported spending 375,000 hours litigating the case. Lawyers representing the opt-out groups—including firms such as Quinn Emanuel, Clifford Chance, and Paul Hastings—filed an opposition last week, describing the request as an attempt to "tax" their clients' right to exclude themselves from the class. They argued that such an order would lead to administrative complications and further legal disputes over fees.
The scale of the dispute involves billions of dollars in potential future judgments. For the settling class of 3 million members, the average gross recovery would be approximately $933 per member before fees; however, the class lawyers have already been awarded $657.1 million in fees—about 23.47% of the total fund—plus $102 million in expenses. The opt-out providers argue that the class counsel's request is an attempt to secure even higher payments from entities that explicitly rejected their representation.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco will set a precedent for how much control class-action lead counsel can exert over independent litigants who utilize evidence or legal theories developed during a class action. A ruling in favor of the set-aside could influence the financial strategy of large healthcare organizations when deciding whether to join or exit future antitrust settlements. A timeline for a ruling has not been reported, but the opt-out lawsuits remain active in federal court.