Almost everyone with some kind of business association and/or investments has been involved in a class action suit; not necessarily by desire but at least by proxy. What typically happens is this: the first you know about a class action suit is when you get an attorneys letter asking if you want to join the 'class' for which the suit is being pursued and telling you that you can join with no liablity or inconvenience. Whether or not you have incurred any loss from the defendant isn't a factor. Your name was merely on the defendants client list which spanned the period for which the suit was being prosecuted. Several class action suits I was invited to join were against American Airlines, an insurance company and some brokerage houses. From A Primer on Civil Law and Civil Process:

A "class-action" lawsuit can be brought under contract law or tort law, but they are more commonly found under tort law relating less to consumer protection (agreements, the stuff of contract law) and more to manufacturer (deep pockets) product safety. A "class-action" is when one or more people on behalf of themselves and others who are similarly situated initiate a civil process, e.g., a large number of consumers injured as a result of an allegedly defective product. The main problem here is that such cases usually involve parties and issues that cross state lines. One would think that the federal courts would be the ideal places to hear such cases, but no, it's the state courts which hear such cases most of the time, and there are some so-called "backwater" or "hellhole" jurisdictions which can almost guarantee an anti-business verdict, so much so that lawyers taking such cases can almost reliably predict what their contingency fee amount will work out to. It's hard not to resist the temptation to become a millionaire lawyer when the system provides so much of an incentive to do so.

The Federal rules on class action suites are detailed, but they seem to favor the plaintiffs as I see no references to proving that the class members have sustained any loss.

With regard to the judicial jurisdictions that favor large settlements, here is one quote from an article entitled Judicial Hellhole.

"What I call the ‘magic jurisdiction,’ ...[is ] where the judiciary is elected with verdict money.The trial lawyers have established relationships with the judges that are elected;they ’re State Court judges;they ’re popul [ists ].They ’ve got large populations of voters who are in on the deal,they ’re getting their [piece ] in many cases..And so, it’s a political force in their jurisdiction,and it ’s almost impossible to get a fair trial if you're a defendant in some of these places.The plaintiff lawyer walks in there and writes the number on the blackboard,and the first juror meets the last one coming out the door with that amount of money....These cases are not won in the courtroom. They’re won on the back roads long before the case goes to trial.Any lawyer fresh out of law school can walk in there and win the case,so it doesn ’t matter what the evidence or law is."

Perhaps one of the basic problem with class action suits is the lack of any penalty for a frivolous suits.

Another type of tort reform (besides caps) is the "loser pays" concept. This is the method used in Great Britain (and in almost all Western democracies). It is simply the idea that the loser in a tort case should pay the legal fees of both sides. It has the effect of discouraging frivolous lawsuits. Unfortunately, this idea hasn't gained much momentum in the United States. Likewise, class-action lawsuit reform is at a relative standstill.

There should be no doubt that class action suits are being abused. In my opinion, the absence of proven damage and/or loss by all members of the class should render the respective class action suits as null and void.