A California federal court has rejected a May 2015 settlement agreement reached by StarKist Co. and a class of consumers who alleged the company underfilled its cans of tuna. Hendricks v. StarKist Co., No. 13-0729 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 19, 2016). The court identified two issues with the settlement: (i) the notice sent to class members did not notify the class of the amended release of future claims, so the settlement notice was inadequate; and (ii) the scope of the original and amended releases violates the identical factual predicate rule. Specifically, the release was too broad because it released StarKist from claims relating to any purchase of StarKist products rather than limiting it to a release from claims related to the purchase of underfilled StarKist tuna products. Details about the settlement agreement appear in Issue 566 of this Update.