Skip to content

United States District Court Western District of Pennsylvania

Final approval granted November 5, 2015

Yencha v. ZeoBIT LLC MacKeeper settlement information
Docket 2:14 cv 00578 JFC Claim period closed

01 / The notice

Notice of class action settlement

The Court authorized a notice to explain the settlement in Yencha v. ZeoBIT LLC and the legal choices that were available to class members. Every deadline described here has passed.

Final approval granted Claim period closed

This page is a plain language summary written for this redesign. It is not a substitute for the official notice, the settlement agreement, or the orders of the Court.

Why the Court authorized this notice

The notice told people in the settlement class that a proposed settlement could affect their legal rights. It described the case, the terms of the agreement, and the steps a class member could take before the Court decided whether to approve the settlement.

Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania oversaw the case. The docket number is 2:14 cv 00578 JFC.

The claim at the center of the case

The lawsuit alleged that ZeoBIT advertised MacKeeper with claims about speed, performance, and security that the software could not fully deliver. The plaintiff sought damages on contract, fraud, and Pennsylvania consumer protection theories.

ZeoBIT denied the claims and said its conduct was lawful. The parties settled the case without a trial. A settlement is not a court finding that either side was right or wrong.

Who was in the settlement class

The class covered MacKeeper buyers who lived in the United States or any U.S. territory and made the purchase on or before July 8, 2015. People who asked to be excluded are not part of the class.

Legal rights and options

Class members had five paths. The first four required action by a deadline. The deadlines are listed so the record is complete.

  1. Submit a claim

    Closed

    Deadline: November 30, 2015

    A timely, valid claim was the only route to a payment from the settlement fund.

  2. Exclude yourself

    Closed

    Deadline: September 21, 2015

    An exclusion request removed a person from the class. Excluded people received no payment and kept their own rights to sue.

  3. Object

    Closed

    Deadline: September 21, 2015

    A written objection asked the Court to consider reasons why the settlement should not be approved.

  4. Attend the fairness hearing

    Held

    Hearing: October 16, 2015

    The hearing gave class members a chance to ask the Court to consider their views on the settlement.

  5. Do nothing

    No action

    No deadline

    A class member who took no action received no payment and remained bound by the settlement.

What the settlement provided

The settlement created a $2,000,000 fund. Valid claims could receive up to $39.95 each. The final payment depended on the number of approved claims and on the costs paid from the fund, including administration, any fee award to class counsel, and any service award to the class representative.

The settlement materials estimated the class at about 513,000 people. If approved claims required more than the money available, each payment would be reduced proportionally.

The Court granted final approval on November 5, 2015. The notice update said approved claimants would receive a check after any appeals were completed. The process was expected to take time, and the notice asked class members to be patient.

Any money left after valid claims and approved costs were paid was to go to two nonprofit organizations: Carnegie Mellon CyLab and the National Consumer Law Center. The settlement materials described that distribution as a further public benefit.

Where the official record lives

The official notice, settlement agreement, and court orders are held by the Court. The filing index on this site explains the main documents and points to the public docket for copies.

Open the filing index