The following excerpt is from Koby v. ARS Nat'l Servs., Inc., 846 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2017):
Even for class members who might become targets of collection efforts by ARS in the future, the settlement's injunctive relief is of no real value. The injunction does not obligate ARS to do anything it was not already doing. It merely requires ARS to continue using the same voicemail message it voluntarily adopted back in 2011. ARS took that step for its own business reasons (presumably to avoid further litigation risk), not because of any court- or settlement-imposed obligation. ARS would therefore be unlikely to revert back to its old ways regardless of whether the settlement contained the stipulated injunction. See Crawford v. Equifax Payment Services, Inc. , 201 F.3d 877, 882 (7th Cir. 2000). To make matters worse, the settlement contained an escape clause that allowed ARS to seek dissolution of the injunction "at any time if there is a change in the law." Thus, if the litigation risk were reduced by a new court decision or legislative enactmentthe only scenario in which ARS might be tempted to resume its prior conductARS could seek to wriggle out of the injunction.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.