Under Federal Rule 23, the district court must determine if the fees to be awarded to plaintiffs’ counsel in a class action settlement are fair. The Ninth Circuit recently concluded in In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011), that the disparity between settlement value and class counsel’s fee raised an inference of unfairness. In Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp., No. C-08-5198 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011), the district court applied Bluetooth to a settlement under which Vector agreed to pay a maximum of $13 million. Of this, $7.76 million was to be provided to class members; the rest was for fees, expenses, and costs of administration, and unclaimed funds reverted to the defendant. Only a portion of the class members submitted claims, resulting in total approved claims payments of less than $1 million. Relying on Bluetooth, the court concluded that there was a danger that class counsel struck a bargain to benefit themselves at the expense of the class. Where defendant is willing to accept a fee request that is disproportionate to class recovery, there is a possibility that “a balance more favorable to the class could have been struck without additional expense to the defendant.” In this settlement, class counsel reached an agreement under which they would receive 80% of the total payment, a result that was not unexpected, given that counsel knew the claims rate would not approach 100%. As a result, the settlement was not fair, reasonable, and adequate.