Are class action lawsuits purposely vague?

Factual Questions
1

A few years ago, I got notice of a class action lawsuit being filed against makers of some D RAM chips I bought. I read the notice, which was jammed with lots of conditional lawspeak, saying I *may *be entitled to compensation, but the requirements for filing for it seemed like too much trouble for what would probably amount to pennies. Besides, the D RAM worked fine for me as far as I recalled, which wasn’t any real amount of recollection since I couldn’t even remember buying it.

Recently, I got notice for a class action lawsuit against American Home Shield, which provides warranties for new home buyers. I went with them for a few years after buying my home. The notice had lots of conditional legalspeak, and in reading it as long as I could without falling asleep, I couldn’t really figure out *why *AHS was being sued. Like with the D RAM, I may be considered for compensation if I kinda do something that may or may not be what I really have to do.

Is this vague wording their way of avoiding slander laws? Like when certain meds get advertised on TV commercials, but nothing is said of what they actually do?

2

Highly unlikely it has anything to do with libel. Forming a class is a balancing act. The plaintiff attorney wants to make the class as big as possible without making it so broad that it would not withstand a challenge for failure to accurately represent the affected parties. Class actions are extremely lucrative for lawyers. You might only be getting a few bucks but the lawyer gets a slice of the full award which can be huge. The courts let that happen because class actions are strong deterrent for companies. It creates a reason for them to be extra cautious about the goods they place into the marketplace. Because if they are unsafe or defective they know they can get slammed in the courts.