Class Action Buddy turns scattered settlement portals into one claim ledger

A Class Action Buddy account carries one reusable claimant profile and a running list of every settlement the user has filed against, each row stamped with a status and an estimated payout. That list is the interesting part. The app describes the filing itself as a roughly sixty-second step — set up your profile once, tap a settlement, auto-fill the official PDF form, sign, submit — but the value for anyone integrating it is not the filing. It is the consolidated ledger sitting on top of dozens of unrelated settlement administrators, each of which would otherwise have to be checked one portal at a time.

Bottom line: the data worth integrating is a per-user claim portfolio — what was filed, where it was filed, where it stands, and what it might pay. We would build that against a consenting account's own traffic, then reconcile the few claims that need a legally authoritative status against the administrator that actually runs each settlement. Everything below is what we found and how we would deliver it.

What is behind the login

These are the surfaces a Class Action Buddy account exposes, named the way the app presents them. Granularity and likely use are from the integrator's side.

Getting at the ledger

A few authorized paths reach this data. They differ in what they return and how long they keep working.

Protocol analysis of the app's own backend

Capturing the client-to-server traffic of a consenting account is the route that returns the whole ledger in one shape: profile, catalog, filings, and the app's own payout estimates. Medium effort. Durability is tied to the app's release cycle, so a status change in the client front end means a re-validation pass on our side. We set this up against an account the customer consents to, captured during onboarding — no production scraping of other users.

Reconciliation against settlement-administrator portals

Each settlement is actually run by an administrator — Epiq, Angeion, JND, Kroll, A.B. Data — and each hosts the official form and the authoritative claim status under its own claim-ID scheme, with no single sign-on between them (per Epiq's and Angeion's claims-administration descriptions). Where a customer needs the legally authoritative state rather than the app's mirror, we look the claim up directly by its ID. Higher per-administrator setup, very durable once mapped.

Consumer privacy export

For a one-time pull, a California consumer's CCPA/CPRA right to know lets them request the personal information the business holds. It is slower and not real-time, but it is the cleanest path when a live sync is not the point. We treat it as a one-shot option, not the basis for an ongoing feed.

What we would actually recommend: build the live feed from the consenting account's backend traffic because it hands you the consolidated portfolio directly, and bolt on administrator-by-claim-ID lookups only for the subset of claims where the authoritative status matters more than the app's estimate. The privacy export stays in reserve for a single snapshot.

A status pull, sketched

Illustrative shape of the ledger read against a consenting account. Exact paths and field names are confirmed during the build, not asserted here as a published contract.

# 1. session — login or the app's OAuth-style token flow
POST /api/v1/auth/session
  { "email": "...", "secret": "..." }
  -> { "access_token": "...", "expires_in": 3600 }

# 2. the consolidated ledger
GET /api/v1/claims?status=filed
  Authorization: Bearer <access_token>
  -> 200
  {
    "claims": [
      { "claim_id": "cab_8f21",
        "settlement": "Consumer data-breach 2025",
        "administrator": "Angeion",
        "external_ref": "ANG-7741920",     # claim id on the portal
        "status": "submitted",             # normalized from portal wording
        "filed_at": "2026-04-02",
        "estimated_payout_usd": 18.00,
        "payout_window": "3-12 months" }
    ]
  }

# error handling
#   401 -> token expired, re-auth
#   429 -> back off; pace at human cadence, never bulk-fire
#   status strings differ per administrator -> map to one enum on ingest

What lands in your repo

The handover is built around the surfaces above, not a generic kit.

• An OpenAPI/Swagger spec for the claim-ledger read, the profile read, and the settlement catalog — described as your own internal contract.
• A protocol and auth-flow report: how the session token is obtained and refreshed, the cookie/header chain, and how each administrator's status vocabulary collapses into one enum.
• Runnable source for the key endpoints in Python or Node.js — session, ledger pull, per-claim administrator lookup, and the normalizer.
• Automated tests, including fixtures for the multi-administrator status mapping and the estimate-versus-settled distinction.
• Interface documentation plus data-retention and minimization guidance for the claimant PII and signature material that passes through.

One schema, many administrators

The point of the normalizer is that downstream code never has to know which administrator a claim came from. One record, administrator-agnostic:

{
  "claim_id": "string",          // Class Action Buddy id
  "external_ref": "string|null", // administrator confirmation / claim id
  "settlement_name": "string",
  "administrator": "Epiq|Angeion|JND|Kroll|ABData|other",
  "status": "draft|submitted|under_review|approved|paid|rejected",
  "filed_at": "date|null",
  "estimate_usd": "number|null", // the app's estimate, not settled
  "settled_usd": "number|null"   // populated only after a confirmed payout
}

Things we plan around

Three specifics about this app shape how the build is engineered.

Fraud scoring is now part of the pipeline

Settlement administrators increasingly run backend anti-fraud — ClaimScore/Covalynt, for instance, reports flagging hundreds of millions of suspect submissions and screening for synthetic identities, duplicates and bot patterns. Automated filing at volume looks exactly like what that machinery is tuned to catch. So we design the integration to act only on a single consenting user's own claims, at human cadence, mirroring the review-and-approve step the app already enforces, rather than anything that resembles bulk auto-submission.

No two administrators agree on a status word

A claim is "submitted" on one portal, "received" on another, "in review" on a third, with different claim-ID formats and no shared login. We map each administrator's vocabulary to one enum at ingest and keep that mapping in a single place, so when an administrator revises its portal we re-validate one table rather than chase the change through the whole codebase.

An estimate is not a payout

The app shows estimated amounts; the real figure depends on court approval, the final claim rate and any appeals, and lands months later. We hold estimate and settled as separate fields and only fill the settled value once a payout is confirmed, so a forecast is never silently read as money in hand.

Consent and the privacy line

This is a US consumer app handling sensitive PII — names, addresses, payment preferences, signatures — so the governing frame is privacy law, not a financial open-banking scheme. In California that is the CCPA as amended by the CPRA, enforced by the California Privacy Protection Agency, with the consumer's right to know and right to delete (the app itself states data can be deleted from settings) and the FTC sitting over deceptive-practice concerns nationally. The CPPA finalized a further regulation package effective 1 January 2026 covering automated decision-making and a data-broker deletion platform, per Jackson Lewis's summary — relevant context for how consent records will be scrutinized, though our basis is simpler. The dependable basis for every pull is the consumer's own authorization to act on their data. We log consent, minimize what we read to the ledger and profile fields the integration needs, retain claim documents only as long as the use case requires, and work under an NDA where a customer wants one.

Working with us

For the claim-ledger pull, $300 buys runnable source — the bill comes due only after we hand it over and you have looked it over and are satisfied, never before. If you would rather not run anything, we host the same integration as endpoints you call and pay for per request, with no upfront fee. Either way the cycle is about one to two weeks. Tell us the app and what you want out of its data; the access and compliance arrangements are worked out with you as part of getting started. To scope it, get in touch through our contact page.

How this was put together

Checked in June 2026 against the app's own description and FAQ, the public claims-administration pages of the major settlement administrators, current anti-fraud tooling in the class-action market, and California's privacy regulator. Primary sources opened:

• Class Action Buddy — FAQ and policies
• Epiq — class action claims administration
• ClaimScore — anti-fraud software for class-action claims
• Jackson Lewis — CCPA regulations effective 1 January 2026

Mapped by the OpenBanking Studio integration desk, June 2026.

Where it sits among claim apps

The same data problem — a user's claims fragmented across many administrators — shows up across this category. A unified integration treats them as one surface. Neutral notes, no ranking:

• Settlemate — scans active lawsuits, checks eligibility from quick answers, and holds a per-user record of submitted claims.
• Top Class Actions — connects to a large US class-action database covering product defects, data breaches and consumer fraud, with per-user claim tracking.
• ClaimBee — find, file and track settlements with one-tap filing, keeping a claim ledger and deadline alerts per account.
• Catch — links a user's cards and bank accounts to surface settlements they may be owed, so its data is partly purchase-derived.
• MoneyPilot — scans for settlements and files on the user's behalf, holding both the discovery feed and a claim history.
• Sparrow (UseSparrow) — lets users browse active settlements by category and check eligibility, with a saved claim list.
• Bobby (formerly Claims Made Simple) — scans the inbox for receipts and matches them to open settlements, so its store is receipt and email-derived.
• ClassAction.org Mobile — a consumer-advocacy feed of settlements with notifications, lighter on per-user filed-claim state.

Screens we worked from

Store screenshots used to read the app's surfaces. Tap to enlarge.

Questions integrators ask

Class Action Buddy mirrors many different settlement administrators — where does an authoritative claim status come from?

The app keeps one consolidated row per filing, but the source of truth for each claim lives on the administrator that runs that settlement — Epiq, Angeion, JND, Kroll or A.B. Data, each with its own claim-ID format and status wording and no shared login. We read the app's normalized status for the ledger view and, where a customer needs the legally authoritative state, reconcile it against the administrator's own lookup by claim ID, mapping every administrator's status vocabulary into one enum on ingest.

Could syncing a user's claims look like the fraudulent bulk filing that administrators screen for?

It can if it is built carelessly, which is why we do not build it that way. Administrators now run backend fraud scoring such as ClaimScore/Covalynt that flags synthetic identities, duplicates and bot-like submission patterns. We scope the integration to a single consenting user acting on their own claims, mirror the review-and-approve step the app already enforces, and pace requests at human cadence rather than firing bulk auto-submissions that would resemble the pattern those systems are tuned to catch.

Can a consumer's own Class Action Buddy data be pulled through a privacy request instead of the app traffic?

Yes, for a one-time pull. Under California's CCPA/CPRA a consumer can ask a business to disclose the personal information it holds, typically answered within 45 days and available twice a year at no cost, and the app states data can also be deleted from account settings. That consumer-initiated export is a clean fallback when a live sync is not needed; for an ongoing ledger we work from the consenting account's own session.

The app shows estimated payouts — what does the integration actually report?

It reports the app's estimate as an estimate, not a settled figure. Class Action Buddy describes per-claim payouts that commonly land between about five and a hundred-plus dollars, arriving roughly three to twelve months after a claim deadline once court approval, claim rates and appeals resolve. We carry an estimate field and a settled field separately, populate the settled value only after a payout is confirmed, and design the sync around that multi-month window so a stale estimate is never treated as final.