A US judge denied final approval of a $12 million settlement for consumers accusing Starkist of selling under-filled cans of tuna, stating the terms unfairly limit the possibility of future antitrust claims against the company.

Although the court “recognizes the costs stemming from a denial of final approval, in light of the reservations identified, all of which were raised by objectors, it cannot conclude that the “proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate”, according to the court document, filed on Feb. 19.

Although the original notice was “reasonably calculated” to bring the settlement agreement to each class member’s attention, the parties stipulated to a change in the release’s scope after the court’s preliminary approval and after class notice was distributed, states the document.

The original notice informed class members that by submitting a claim form, class members would give up rights to sue Starkist on “the same legal claims” in this lawsuit, brought by a man named Patrick Hendricks.

After the original notice, it emerged the US Department of Justice (DOJ) is probing possible cartel activity in the shelf stable seafood sector between Starkist, Bumble Bee Foods and Thai Union Group-owned Tri-Union Seafoods, which trades as Chicken of the Sea.

The revelation of the DOJ probe has then brought a wave of class action lawsuits from consumers and retailers, claiming damages from the alleged price fixing.

The amended release in the $12m Starkist settlement, however, broadened the scope from limiting those involved in the settlement bringing the same legal claims.

It “specified new claims, most notably claims under federal and state antitrust laws”, could also not be brought, according to the document, filed in district court in California and signed by US district judge Haywood Gilliam.

“Having not received the amended release, potential class members did not have any notice of the rights they are actually giving up with regard to these new claims,” the document states.

“Under these circumstances, a change in the scope of the settlement’s release constitutes a substantive change in the settlement’s terms and is a change that affects class members’ rights under the agreement.”

The parties have failed to demonstrate that it would be “fair and reasonable for the court to enforce such a broad release provision”, states the document. “The amended release does not track the breadth of allegations in the complaint, instead releasing claims under antitrust laws mentioned nowhere in the complaint.”

That the underlying fact of under-filling could play some part in both this lawsuit and a possible future antitrust action does not compel the conclusion that the two actions are based on an identical factual predicate, it states.

Given that class members did not receive notice of the amended release, the parties cannot establish that class members have been informed of the consequences of remaining in the class or opting out, the document states.

As a result, “the parties have not satisfied minimum due process requirements”.

There has been no showing that class members “have been independently compensated for the broad release of claims” related to antitrust conspiracies, states the document.

The scope of the original release also violates the identical factual predicate rule, the document states.

The original release discharged “any and all claims . . . relating in any way to the claims asserted or the factual allegations made in the Action, including without limitation the alleged under-filling of the StarKist Products and/or the purchase of any of the StarKist Products at any time on or after February 19, 2009 and prior to November 1, 2014”.

However, the document states it is now apparent to the court that the original release improperly extended beyond the scope of the facts in this action, which were limited to the under-filling of Starkist tuna cans, not all claims “relating in any way” to the purchase of Starkist products.

The parties had reached a settlement and sought preliminary approval of the agreement on May 14, 2015. Then, on July 23, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.