My take: maybe not advertising the deal is part of the deal? Wouldn't (as a CEO of a major company) the plaintiff see value in protecting their reputation. Maybe us not lambasting the news all over town is a perk we've put on the table?

Conversely: If (as a CEO) you were trying to avoid bad press and see one of the "other" plaintiffs fold and are subsequently PR'd to death so everyone knows what they've done = reputation harmed. I'm just thinking out loud here.

It's obvious they didn't want to provide settlement numbers, otherwise the other plaintiffs would be trying to low-ball us for the same deal XYZ got...