The class action settlement in this case had all three of the danger-warnings of a plaintiff’s lawyer’s sell-out for increased fees: a disproportionately large attorney fee provision, a clear-sailing provision, and reverter of unawarded attorney fees to the defendant. Nevertheless, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement as fair, just, and reasonable. The district court carefully examined the settlement and its negotiation to assure itself that defendant had not colluded with plaintiffs’ lawyers to benefit the lawyers at the class’ expense. The settlement gave real value to class members who filed claims including credit monitoring for up to 2 years, up to $1,000 for ordinary expenses and lost time, and up to $5,000 for monetary loss from identity theft. Though the claims-made feature of the settlement was troublesome due to the usual low rate of claims, but claims-made settlements are not ipso facto unfair. And here real benefits were paid to claimants. However, the district court’s approval of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fee award request was reversed and remanded since the fees far exceeded the usual 25% of common fund settlements and there were concerns about too many lawyers working on the case.