Plain Language as an Equity Imperative in Class Action Administration

Nicole Christ: SVP Operations, JND Legal Administration

The Case for Clarity

Class action settlements exist to provide meaningful relief to those who have been harmed. Yet for millions of Americans, the very language used in notices and claim forms creates an insurmountable barrier to participation. When we examine who is excluded by complex legal language, we confront an uncomfortable truth: the people most likely to be shut out of the process are often those who need relief the most.

Plain language is not merely a best practice or a matter of customer service. It is a fundamental equity issue that goes to the heart of what class action administration is meant to achieve. When notices and claim forms are written in dense or legal language, class members may miss critical details or abandon the process altogether. Clear, concise communication improves understanding, reduces confusion, increases participation, and lowers support center volume, all while strengthening trust in the process.

Understanding the Literacy Landscape

The most compelling case for plain language begins with data. According to a Gallup analysis of U.S. Department of Education data, more than 130 million American adults have low literacy skills. This means that 54% of Americans between the ages of 16 and 74 read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level. An additional study from the National Assessment of Adult Literacy found that 43% of U.S. adults have below basic or basic reading skills.

These are not abstract statistics. They represent real people—potential class members —who face structural barriers to understanding their rights and redeeming settlement benefits that may be owed to them. Without clear, audience-centered revision, traditional legal communication effectively excludes more than half of the adult population from full participation in the legal process.

Who Benefits from Plain Language

Plain language especially benefits populations that have been historically underrepresented in legal processes. These include individuals with low literacy skills, non-native English speakers, people without legal knowledge, individuals with limited time or digital confidence, low-income community members, and people who rely primarily on mobile devices to access information.

When we fail to use plain language, these class members are disproportionately harmed. When we do use it, we give everyone a fair and equal chance to understand their rights, submit a claim, and benefit from the settlement. This is not about lowering standards; it is about increasing access.

The Evidence: Plain Language Delivers Results

Research from the Nielsen Norman Group demonstrates the transformative power of writing for accessibility. When content is rewritten for lower-literacy audiences, the improvements are dramatic, not marginal. The following data illustrates the impact of revising web content for a broad consumer audience:

Task Success Rate

User Group	Original Site	Rewritten Site
Lower-literacy users	46%	82%
Higher-literacy users	68%	93%

 

Total Task Time

User Group	Original Site	Rewritten Site
Lower-literacy users	22.3 min.	9.5 min.
Higher-literacy users	14.3 min.	5.1 min.

 

User Satisfaction (1–5 Scale)

User Group	Original Site	Rewritten Site
Lower-literacy users	3.5	4.4
Higher-literacy users	3.7	4.8

The implications are significant. For lower-literacy users, task success rates nearly doubled, from 46% to 82%. Task completion time dropped by more than half, from over 22 minutes to under 10 minutes. User satisfaction rose substantially across the board. Critically, higher-literacy users also benefited from the revisions, demonstrating that writing for accessibility improves the experience for everyone.

Understanding How Users Read

Effective plain language requires understanding how people actually consume information. Research shows that web users scan and skim content, often deciding within five seconds whether a page is useful to them. Users typically scan pages in an F-shaped pattern, focusing on the top left side of the page, headings, and the first few words of sentences. On average, users only read the first two words on each line.

A 2008 study analyzing over 45,000 page views found that web users read only about 18% of a page's content. As word count increases, the percentage of text read by users decreases. To get users to read half of your content, pages should be limited to 110 words or fewer.

For class action administrators, these findings underscore the importance of presenting essential information prominently and concisely. Effective communication employs the inverted pyramid style, beginning with the clearest, most essential statement and placing background information at the end. Content should be chunked into logical sections with descriptive headings. And every piece of information should earn its place; unnecessary content creates barriers, not clarity.

Implications for Class Action Administration

The equity case for plain language should prompt a fundamental reexamination of how class action notices, claim forms, and settlement websites are developed. Every communication should be evaluated not against an abstract standard of legal sufficiency, but against the question: Can the people who most need this information actually understand and act on it?

This means investing in readability testing, user research, and iterative design. It means challenging the assumption that legal precision requires legal language. And it means recognizing that a notice that cannot be understood by its intended audience has failed in its fundamental purpose, regardless of how technically accurate it may be.

Conclusion: Writing for Everyone

The research is unambiguous: writing for the people with the highest barriers results in a process that is easier, faster, and more effective for everyone. Plain language is not about dumbing down content; it is about removing unnecessary complexity that serves no one.

In class action administration, where the goal is to provide meaningful relief to class members, communication barriers represent a failure of the system itself. By committing to plain language, administrators can help ensure that every eligible class member, regardless of education level, language background, or legal sophistication, has a genuine opportunity to understand their rights and participate in the settlement process.

That is not merely good practice. It is what fairness requires.