Under In re On-Line DVD Rental Antitrust Litig. (Frank v. Netflix, Inc.) (9th Cir. 2015) 779 F.3d 934), a court considers three factors to decide if a class settlement is a “coupon settlement subject to CAFA’s (28 USC 1712’s) restriction on attorney fee awards. First, do class members receive only a discount on services and must pay more out of pocket to redeem their class benefits? Here, the per class member recovery was only 35 cents, but class members could choose to receive it in cash rather than as a credit on an Uber ride, so this factor weighed against coupon treatment. Second, is the credit valid only for select products or services? Here, the credit was valid only for Uber services, so this factor weighed in favor of coupon treatment. Third, ow much flexibility does the credit provide, including whether it expires or is freely transferrable? Here, the credits were not transferable and expired after a year, but on expiration, the benefit would be paid to the class member in cash, so this factor weighed against coupon treatment. Two out of three weighing against coupon, it was not a coupon settlement for CAFA purposes.