Published
December 9, 2024
Updated
August 1, 2026
The $27.5 million Thomson Reuters CLEAR privacy settlement paid approved California claimants $156.09 each. The administrator reported class distribution complete in October 2025.
Current Status
Claims are closed, and class-member distribution is complete. The court granted final approval on February 21, 2025. Checks were mailed April 15 and digital payments were sent April 22, followed by second-chance payments through early September. An October 2025 post-distribution filing says 125,241 payments of $156.09 were issued and the administrator completed the court-approved distribution plan.StatusPayments Completed
Claim DeadlineDecember 27, 2024 — Passed
Payment Issued$156.09 per Approved Claim
Approved Claims125,241
What Changed After the Claim Period?
The court granted final approval on February 21, 2025. The administrator mailed paper checks on April 15 and sent the first digital payments on April 22. It then worked through failed digital payments and returned or uncashed checks, sending updated digital payments on June 30, replacement checks on July 3, and a final set of paper checks in early September. The October post-distribution filing says that process completed distribution to class members under the approved plan.What Was the CLEAR Privacy Case About?
The lawsuit alleged that Thomson Reuters collected, compiled, and sold personal information about California residents through CLEAR without adequate consent. CLEAR is a research and public-records platform used by professionals and organizations, including for investigations and identity research. Plaintiffs asserted California privacy and publicity claims. Thomson Reuters denied wrongdoing and liability, and the settlement resolved the disputed allegations without a trial verdict.Who Was Included?
The settlement generally covered people who resided in California at any time from December 3, 2016, through October 31, 2024. A claimant did not have to show that they personally subscribed to CLEAR; the allegations concerned information about California residents available through the platform. Eligibility still required a timely form and an attestation that the person lived in California during the class period.How Did the Final Payout Compare With Estimates?
The legacy page estimated roughly $19 to $48 because the final number of valid claims was unknown. The completed accounting shows a much higher uniform recovery: each approved claimant was issued $156.09. The administrator reported 752,034 submissions but only 125,241 valid and approved claims, after a large volume of fraudulent or otherwise invalid submissions was removed. That smaller approved pool increased the per-claim amount.How Much Money Reached Claimants?
The administrator reported issuing 125,241 cash payments totaling $19,548,867.69. As of October 17, 2025, 124,336 payments totaling $19,407,606.24 had cleared, while 905 paper checks worth $141,261.45 had not. The filing described a 99.28% successful distribution rate for the net settlement amount and stated that the administrator had completed distribution under the plan.What Proof Did the Historical Claim Require?
The claim process did not require a purchase receipt, because this was not a product-purchase case. A claimant had to provide identifying information and attest to California residency during the class period. The administrator reviewed the submissions and rejected invalid claims. The deadline has passed, and the number of rejected claims shows that an attestation-only form was still subject to fraud review and validation.What Happened to the Remaining Fund?
The post-distribution filing reported $136,739.59 remaining after the payment process. It estimated that another direct distribution would cost too much relative to an approximately 70-cent supplemental amount for each successful claimant. The parties therefore proposed using the settlement's residual-fund procedure rather than sending another class payment. That proposal does not create a new claim opportunity.What Should a Former Claimant Know?
The administrator's completed accounting is the best source for the overall payment record. A claimant who received a payment should rely on their own check or digital-payment record for the individual transaction. OpenClassActions cannot reissue an expired check, change a payment method, or access the administrator's claimant database.Official Information
Review the latest information on the official post-distribution accounting website.
Case
Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
Case Number
3:21-cv-01418-EMC
Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Settlement Fund
$27.5 million
Final Approval
February 21, 2025
Payments Issued
April–September 2025
Final Payment
$156.09
Official Website
official post-distribution accounting
For more class actions, recalls, and refunds, keep scrolling below.
