In addition, as noted by the parties, it was the delay in submitting the comments of the professional bodies that delayed the approval of the settlement arrangement. Therefore, even if the appointment of the office holder in accordance with the settlement arrangement will soon become mandatory in accordance with the law when it comes into effect, at the time of filing the application, there was a question of excess regularization to which the IEC was undertaking.
- I also accept the parties' argument that in accordance with the arrangement, the change in the privacy policy will be brought to the attention of the public and the customers while updating the user of the IEC website, which is the means used by the customers using the website and is therefore the appropriate means of providing the update; and with regard to the use of cookies, in any case, an opt-in mechanism will begin to operate , whereby informed consent will be obtained for the use of cookies.
- In light of all of the above, I found that the settlement achieves a proper benefit and that in the circumstances of the matter it constitutes a religious and appropriate conclusion to the dispute.
Exemption from appointing an examiner
- I found that in the circumstances of the case, there is room to grant the parties' request and there is no reason to appoint an examiner under section 19(b)(1) of the Class Actions Law. The purpose of appointing the examiner is to assist the court in examining the settlement in order to protect the interests of the group and to ensure that the settlement is reasonable and fair from their point of view and that the conclusion of the proceeding in the settlement is the most efficient and fair way to resolve the dispute. I found that in the circumstances of the case, the settlement does indeed guarantee these purposes.
Reimbursement of expenses and fees
- The professional sources are of the opinion that the parties' recommendation regarding remuneration and fees should be examined as if it were an outline of compensated withdrawal in accordance with the Markit case.
- Section 22(b) of the Class Actions Law establishes the considerations in awarding remuneration: considerations of input, trouble and risk that the representative plaintiff assumed in filing and managing the action; considerations of output, the benefit that the class action brought to the members of the class represented; and considerations of intention, the degree of public importance of the action. With respect to the fees for the representative counsel, section 23(b) establishes the following considerations: the benefit that the class action brought to the class members; the complexity of the proceeding, the hassle and the risk that the representative counsel undertook in filing and managing the action and the expenses he incurred for this purpose; the degree of public importance of the class action; the manner in which the representative counsel conducted the proceeding; and the gap between the remedies claimed in the motion for certification and the remedies awarded by the court in the class action.
In the case law, it was clarified that this is not an exhaustive list of considerations, and that the award of remuneration and fees is subject to the discretion of the trial court, in accordance with the totality of the concrete circumstances of the case. See: CA 2046/10 Estate of the late Moshe Shemesh v. Reichert, IsrSC 65(2) 681 (May 23, 2012); The Markit Matter; CA 9134/05 Levitt v. Ko Op North, Cooperative Society for Services Ltd. [Nevo] (February 7, 2008); CA 1387/23 Gindi v. Holmes Place International Ltd. [Nevo] (December 18, 2023).
- I did not see fit to reduce the amount of remuneration and the recommended fees determined globally, even though it is on the high side, in light of the importance of the issue raised in the application for approval; taking into account the benefit that was achieved as a result of the submission of the application for approval in relation to the IEC's activity to update the company's privacy policy and publish it in a way that is accessible to the digitally illiterate on the IEC's website; and also taking into account their commitment to perform the obligations described in the application as excessive regulation beyond the requirements of the law; Implementation of opt-in mechanisms which enable customers to have explicit control over the use of the information collected through "cookies" on the website; and the appointment of an information security officer who will supervise the implementation of the obligations detailed in the arrangement and the execution of penetration tests more frequently; and sending information to IEC customers regarding privacy and cyber protection along with the invoice for one year. In this context, see: CA 7593/21 Feintoch v. Aloniel Ltd. [Nevo] (June 9, 2022); andCA 1394/24 Halperin Optics Ltd. v. Kochav Ziss [Nevo] (April 24, 2025), paragraph 21 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice Grosskopf; and against the background of the chances and risks of continuing the conduct of the proceeding from the perspective of the class members whom he is requested to represent.
Exemption from paying the second part of the fee
- The parties request an exemption from paying the second part of the fee. According to the parties, there are "special reasons to be recorded" set forth in section 7a(3) of the Courts Regulations (Fees), 5767-2007, since the request to approve a settlement was filed at an early stage of the hearing after only two pre-trial proceedings were conducted, and because the parties responded to the court's suggestions to talk, thus saving judicial time. The professional bodies are of the opinion that the parties' request for an exemption from the second part of the fee should be rejected.
- When a judgment approving a settlement was issued, the court was authorized to exempt the respondent from paying the second part of the fee in whole or in part, "for special reasons that will be recorded". See: Civil Case (Central District) 50737-01-19 Yuval Lepiner, Law Offices v. Bank Hapoalim Ltd . [Nevo] (April 5, 2021). In the circumstances of the case, taking into account the existence of two pre-trial meetings in the proceeding; and the willingness and efficiency of the parties that led to a proportionate and appropriate conclusion to the dispute in the initial stages of the proceeding; I considered that the request of the parties should be partially granted and that the respondent be exempt from paying half of the second part of the fee.
Conclusion
- I approve the settlement and give it the force of a judgment.
- The Respondent will submit a notice together with an affidavit of an authorized party regarding the completion of its obligations in the Settlement by July 1, 2025. Notice of July 2, 2025.
- I order the publication of the second notice in accordance with section 25(a)(4) of the Law. The notice will detail the details listed in section 19(c)(1) and (2), a reference to the class actions register where it will be possible to review the judgment and the settlement, as stated in section 25(d) of the law, as well as the internet address where the notice regarding the settlement was published. The Respondent will bear the costs of the publication.
- The text of the second notice will be brought to the court for approval by June 9, 2025. After its approval, the Respondent will send a copy of the second notice to the Director of Courts in accordance with Section 25(g) of the Law. 6.2025.
- The publication will be in two daily newspapers with a wide circulation, measuring 15 x 15 cm, as well as on the Respondent's website. The publication will include a free option to review the settlement or download it as a file in an acceptable format (such as PDF). A contact linked to the notice should be placed prominently on the main page of the IEC's homepage.
- The parties shall provide a copy of the judgment to the Director of Courts for registration in the Class Actions Register.