“When Congress enacted the Class Action Fairness Act, one of its targets was abusive ‘coupon settlements,’ where
defendants and class counsel agree to provide coupons of dubious value to class members but to pay class counsel with cash. The potential for abuse is greatest when the coupons have value only if a class member is willing to do business again with the defendant who has injured her in some way, when the coupons have modest value compared to the new purchase for which they must be used, and when the coupons expire soon, are not transferable, and/or cannot be aggregated. We hold first that § 1712 applies to this settlement. This provision applies to class action settlements that provide for ‘a recovery of coupons.’ We have rejected a narrow definition of ‘coupon’ by rejecting, for purposes of § 1712, a proposed distinction between ‘vouchers’ (good for an entire product) and ‘coupons’ (good for price discounts).  The more difficult issue is whether § 1712 allowed the district court to use the lodestar method to calculate the fee award for class counsel.  § 1712(a) does not expressly prohibit use of the lodestar method. What the sentence does, unambiguously, is reject the most abusive method for calculating a fee in a coupon settlement: calculating the fee as a percentage of the face value of all the coupons issued. To protect against such abusive settlements, § 1712(a) requires that any percentage-of-recovery award in a coupon settlement be based upon a percentage of the value of the coupons actually redeemed by class members, not the nominal value of the coupons merely available to the class. Subsection (a) does not, however, prohibit the use of the lodestar method for coupon settlements that do not provide injunctive relief. This is not a case where coupons of dubious value will be provided to compensate for a loss of cash. The class lost the value of drink coupons. The settlement provides replacement drink coupons, on a one-for-one basis. Serendipitous or not, such essentially complete relief for the class is the model of an adequate settlement. The class members will receive everything they reasonably could have hoped for.” Levitt  v. Southwest Airlines, No.13-3264 (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2015).