Yes, Thomson Reuters agreed to pay $27.5 million to settle a class action claiming its CLEAR investigative software sold Californians’ personal data without their consent. The non-reversionary fund resolves *Brooks et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.*, a 2021 lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which alleged that CLEAR compiled detailed personal profiles on millions of California residents and sold access to them in violation of state privacy law.
A federal judge granted approval of the deal, clearing the way for payments to eligible class members. For consumers, the practical result is twofold: eligible Californians could receive an estimated payment of roughly $19 to $48 per valid claim, and Thomson Reuters agreed to make it easier for residents to request deletion of their CLEAR data for a period of four years. As an example of what the case was about, CLEAR allegedly bundled a person’s home addresses, phone numbers, criminal and financial records, names of relatives, and even photographs into a single searchable dossier that paying customers could pull up in seconds — all without the subject ever agreeing to it. It is worth being clear about the numbers from the outset. The $27.5 million fund and the four-year injunctive terms are confirmed by multiple independent sources, including Courthouse News, MLex, and class counsel Cohen Milstein. The specific per-person dollar range and the calendar deadlines come largely from settlement-aggregator coverage and should be read as estimates that move with how many people file, not as guaranteed checks.
Table of Contents
- What Did the Thomson Reuters CLEAR Privacy Settlement Actually Resolve?
- Who Qualified for a Payment and What Were the Key Deadlines?
- How Much Money Will Class Members Receive?
- What Did Thomson Reuters Agree to Change About CLEAR?
- What Are the Limitations and Risks Consumers Should Know?
- How Does This Settlement Fit Into California’s Broader Privacy Landscape?
- What Should You Do If You Think You Were Affected by CLEAR?
What Did the Thomson Reuters CLEAR Privacy Settlement Actually Resolve?
The settlement resolves allegations that Thomson Reuters’ CLEAR product — a data-aggregation and investigative tool marketed to law enforcement, businesses, and other professional users — collected and sold the personal information of California residents without obtaining their consent. The lead case, *Brooks et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp.*, No. 3:21-cv-01418, was filed in 2021 and argued that this practice ran afoul of California privacy law, including disclosure requirements associated with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). At the center of the complaint was the nature of CLEAR itself.
The product did not simply hold a name and an address. According to the allegations, it stitched together addresses, phone numbers, criminal histories, financial records, lists of relatives and associates, and photographs into comprehensive, searchable profiles. The plaintiffs contended that selling access to those profiles, built from people who never opted in, amounted to commercializing their identities without permission. To put this in perspective, CLEAR is often compared to other “people search” and skip-tracing databases, but it is generally aimed at professional and institutional customers rather than the general public. That distinction matters: many Californians named in CLEAR likely had no idea the product existed, let alone that a profile of them was available for purchase. The settlement does not require Thomson Reuters to admit wrongdoing — like most class action resolutions, it ends the litigation without a finding of liability.
Who Qualified for a Payment and What Were the Key Deadlines?
Eligibility centered on California residency and timing. The class was defined to include California residents aged 18 and older whose personal information appeared in the CLEAR database between December 3, 2016 and October 31, 2024. The claim and exclusion deadline was reported as December 6, 2024, and the court scheduled a final approval hearing for February 13, 2025. One notable consumer-friendly feature: claimants were not required to upload documents or proof. A signed statement attesting to California residency under penalty of perjury was enough to file. The warning here is straightforward but important.
Because the claims deadline was in December 2024, the window to file in this particular settlement has already passed for most consumers reading about it after the fact. If you believe you were a class member and did not file, your options are limited, and there is no general “late claim” guarantee. Settlement deadlines are firm, and missing one usually forecloses a cash recovery even if you otherwise qualified. There is also a tradeoff baked into the low-friction claims process. Requiring only a sworn statement rather than documentation makes filing easy and broadens participation, but it can also drive up the number of claims — and because the fund is a fixed amount, more valid claims mean each individual payment shrinks toward the bottom of that $19 to $48 estimated range. A high response rate is good for access and bad for the size of any single check.
How Much Money Will Class Members Receive?
The headline figure is $27.5 million, but individual class members will receive only a fraction of that. After deductions, claimants were estimated to receive somewhere between $19 and $48 each, with the exact amount depending on total claim volume. The fund is described as non-reversionary, which is a meaningful detail: it means leftover money does not flow back to Thomson Reuters. That structure generally pushes more of the fund toward class members or approved secondary recipients rather than returning to the defendant. Several costs come out of the fund before consumers are paid.
Attorneys’ fees were set at approximately $6.875 million, or 25% of the fund, and administrative costs were estimated at up to roughly $485,000. As a concrete example of how this works in practice, if a large number of Californians file valid claims, the per-person payout drifts toward the $19 floor; if relatively few file, payments climb toward the $48 ceiling. The math is a straightforward division of the net fund among approved claimants. A 25% fee award is common in class action settlements and is often treated by courts as a benchmark rather than an outlier. Still, consumers should understand that the gap between a $27.5 million “settlement” and a sub-$50 check is normal, not a sign that something went wrong — the fund is built to compensate a very large class, plus the lawyers and administrators who built and ran the case.
What Did Thomson Reuters Agree to Change About CLEAR?
Beyond the cash, the settlement includes injunctive relief — non-monetary obligations that change how Thomson Reuters operates CLEAR going forward. For a period of four years, the company agreed to make it easier for Californians to request deletion of their CLEAR data and to publish a public-facing website explaining what information CLEAR collects. In effect, this creates enhanced opt-out and deletion procedures for residents who want their profiles removed. This is where the settlement’s value gets more interesting than the dollar figure.
A one-time payment of, say, $30 is modest, but a durable mechanism to delete your data and a transparency page describing what is collected can have a longer practical impact for privacy-conscious consumers. The tradeoff is duration: the obligations last four years, not forever. Once that window closes, the enhanced procedures are not contractually guaranteed to continue, although broader laws like the CCPA still impose independent obligations on data brokers. Compared with a pure cash settlement, this hybrid structure tries to address both backward-looking harm (money for past data sales) and forward-looking behavior (easier deletion and disclosure). For someone who cares more about getting out of the database than about a small check, the injunctive relief may be the more useful half of the deal — but only if they actually use the deletion process while it is in place.
What Are the Limitations and Risks Consumers Should Know?
The most important limitation is the gap between confirmed facts and estimates. The $27.5 million fund, the *Brooks v. Thomson Reuters* caption, and the four-year injunctive terms are well documented across independent outlets and class counsel. The $19 to $48 payment range and the specific deadline dates, by contrast, trace primarily to settlement-aggregator sites. Treat the dollar figures as projections tied to claim volume, not promises. The only authoritative source for claim status and amounts is the official administrator.
A second risk is the proliferation of look-alike and scam communications that follow any high-profile settlement. The official claims site for this matter was reported as clearprivacysettlement.com. Be cautious of any message demanding a fee to file, requesting your Social Security number or bank login to “process” a claim, or directing you to a domain you cannot verify. Legitimate class action administrators do not charge consumers to submit a claim, and this settlement specifically required no documentation beyond a sworn residency statement. Finally, remember that settling is not the same as a court finding that Thomson Reuters broke the law. The company resolved the litigation without admitting wrongdoing, which is standard. That means the settlement compensates class members and changes certain practices, but it does not establish a binding legal precedent that CLEAR’s data sales were illegal — a limitation worth keeping in mind when reading sweeping claims about what the case “proved.”.
How Does This Settlement Fit Into California’s Broader Privacy Landscape?
The case is part of a growing wave of litigation targeting data brokers and aggregators under California’s privacy statutes. California has some of the strongest consumer privacy protections in the country, and the CCPA’s disclosure and deletion rights gave plaintiffs a framework to argue that compiling and selling detailed profiles without consent crossed a legal line.
The CLEAR matter shows how those rights can translate into real leverage in court. As a concrete example of the trend, data brokers that build searchable dossiers — combining public records, financial data, and personal identifiers — have increasingly faced class actions and regulatory scrutiny precisely because their core business involves information about people who never signed up. The Thomson Reuters settlement signals that even sophisticated, professionally marketed products like CLEAR are not insulated from consumer privacy claims when California residents’ data is involved.
What Should You Do If You Think You Were Affected by CLEAR?
If you are a California resident who believes your information was in CLEAR between December 3, 2016 and October 31, 2024, your first step is to verify status directly through the official administrator at clearprivacysettlement.com rather than relying on third-party summaries. Because the reported claims deadline was December 6, 2024, confirm whether any filing window remains open before assuming you can still submit.
The administrator is the only entity that can tell you definitively whether you are a class member and what, if anything, you are owed. Separately, even outside this settlement, Californians retain independent rights under the CCPA to ask data brokers to disclose and delete their information. As a practical example, a resident concerned about CLEAR can use the company’s public disclosure page and deletion request process — strengthened for four years under the settlement — to ask that their profile be removed, regardless of whether they ever filed a claim for the cash payment.
You Might Also Like
- Duke Health Meta Pixel Settlement Resolves Claims Patient Data Was Shared With Facebook
- LCPtracker Data Breach Settlement Covers Workers Whose Information Was Exposed
- Fandango Convenience Fee Settlement Resolves Claims Moviegoers Paid Improper Fees
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: