Cost her? Are you kidding?
A plaintiff in a class action suit like this pays nothing. She gets to be named as a plaintiff, and when the suit settled, she got a little payoff as part of the settlement. I know, I was such a plaintiff once.
The plaintiff's attorneys finance cases like these. And you can bet they got a big payoff in attorneys fees as part of the settlement.
Understand the way class action suits work: (1) a plaintiff's attorney finds a somewhat questionable practice, like in this case; (2) the plaintiff's attorney finds a plaintiff to act as class plaintiff to bring suit; (3) the plaintiff's attorney negotiates a settlement with the defendants that requires the defendants to make some de minimis changes to whatever questionable practice it was engagiing in--while reserving to itself the substance of the right to continue to engage in whatever the questionable practice was; and (4) the class plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorneys get paid off.
The plaintiff wins--she gets a payoff. The plaintiff's attorneys win--they get a big legal fee. And the defendants win--they get to insulate the substance of the questionable practices enshrined in the collusive settlement from further legal challenge.
I understand that. While it does read sorta like a class action suit, the article never mentions that fact. She and one other person were named as the plaintiffs. That doesn't sound like a class action suit to me.