Deadlines Calendar

« July 2019 »

S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

Class Action by Status


'closed' Listing

Saar’s (FACTA) »

Defendant: Saar’s

Consumers who conducted credit or debit card transactions and received an electronically-printed receipt that displayed the expiration date of the consumer’s credit or debit card between July 20, 2014 and July 18, 2016 Saar’s or Super Saver Foods store may be eligible for up to $75 Saars gift card. The… Read More »

Saar’s (FACTA) »

Defendant: Saar’s

Consumers who conducted credit or debit card transactions and received an electronically-printed receipt that displayed the expiration date of the consumer’s credit or debit card between July 20, 2014 and July 18, 2016 Saar’s or Super Saver Foods store may be eligible for up to $75 Saars gift card. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

Read More »

Tags/Keywords

×

Proctor & Gamble (Align probiotic supplements) »

Defendant: Proctor & Gamble

Consumers who bought Align between March 1, 2009 and June 6, 2016 may be eligible for a cash refund, with a maximum of $49.26. The company reached a settlement over allegations of falsely advertising the health benefits of the supplements.    Read More »

Proctor & Gamble (Align probiotic supplements) »

Defendant: Proctor & Gamble

Consumers who bought Align between March 1, 2009 and June 6, 2016 may be eligible for a cash refund, with a maximum of $49.26. The company reached a settlement over allegations of falsely advertising the health benefits of the supplements.

Read More »

Tags/Keywords

×

KT Health Holdings (KT Tape) »

Defendant: KT Health Holdings

Consumers who bought certain KT Tape products between October 30, 2011 and November 3, 2017 may be eligible for a partial refund of the full retail price. The company reached a settlement over allegations of falsely advertising that the product would relieve pain from sports-related injuries and prevent sports-related injuries.… Read More »

KT Health Holdings (KT Tape) »

Defendant: KT Health Holdings

Consumers who bought certain KT Tape products between October 30, 2011 and November 3, 2017 may be eligible for a partial refund of the full retail price. The company reached a settlement over allegations of falsely advertising that the product would relieve pain from sports-related injuries and prevent sports-related injuries.

Read More »

Tags/Keywords

×

Costco (FCRA) »

Defendant: Costco

The lawsuit alleges that Costco failed to use the correct disclosure form as required by Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Individuals who applied for employment with Costco between August 10, 2014 and April 17, 2017 and had a background check report conducted with the Costco disclosure form may be eligible for cash… Read More »

Costco (FCRA) »

Defendant: Costco

The lawsuit alleges that Costco failed to use the correct disclosure form as required by Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Individuals who applied for employment with Costco between August 10, 2014 and April 17, 2017 and had a background check report conducted with the Costco disclosure form may be eligible for cash payment.  Individuals who were denied employment after review of their background report may be eligible for cash payment.

Read More »

Tags/Keywords

×

Orbit Baby, Inc. (Infant and Toddler Car Seats) »

Defendant: Orbit Baby, Inc.

California consumers who purchased a new Orbit Baby, Inc. car seat between April 26, 2012 and February 23, 2018 may be eligible for payment. The company reached a settlement over allegations of falsely advertising that the products do not contain brominated and chlorinated flame retardants or other unsafe chemicals.    Read More »

Orbit Baby, Inc. (Infant and Toddler Car Seats) »

Defendant: Orbit Baby, Inc.

California consumers who purchased a new Orbit Baby, Inc. car seat between April 26, 2012 and February 23, 2018 may be eligible for payment. The company reached a settlement over allegations of falsely advertising that the products do not contain brominated and chlorinated flame retardants or other unsafe chemicals.

Read More »

Tags/Keywords

×

Big 5 (Bearpaw Lassen WP) »

Defendant: Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp

California consumers who bought Bearpaw Lassen WP men’s or women’s hiking boots from a Big5 store in California between January 25, 2012 and October 20, 2017 may be eligible for $5 cash or $7.50 merchandise voucher. The company reached a settlement over allegations of misrepresenting the waterproof features of the… Read More »

Big 5 (Bearpaw Lassen WP) »

Defendant: Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp

California consumers who bought Bearpaw Lassen WP men’s or women’s hiking boots from a Big5 store in California between January 25, 2012 and October 20, 2017 may be eligible for $5 cash or $7.50 merchandise voucher. The company reached a settlement over allegations of misrepresenting the waterproof features of the products.

Read More »

Tags/Keywords

×

DISH Network (FSN or FX subscribers) »

Defendant: DISH Network

DISH did not provide FSN and FX programming between October 1, 2010 and October 29, 2010 to subscribers. AT120+ members who are still DISH subscribers may be eligible for $3 cash or $5 account credit towards an upgrade of certain programming. AT120+ members who no longer have DISH may be… Read More »

DISH Network (FSN or FX subscribers) »

Defendant: DISH Network

DISH did not provide FSN and FX programming between October 1, 2010 and October 29, 2010 to subscribers. AT120+ members who are still DISH subscribers may be eligible for $3 cash or $5 account credit towards an upgrade of certain programming. AT120+ members who no longer have DISH may be eligible for $3 cash or $5 credit for re-signing with DISH.  

Read More »

Tags/Keywords

×

Electrolux (Front-Loading Washing Machine) »

Defendant: Electrolux

Consumers who purchased certain front-loading washing machines that was manufactured by Electrolux between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2011 may be eligible to choose $50 cash, or a cash rebate off retail purchase price of an approved Electrolux appliance, or reimbursement of up to $500 for out-of-pocket expenses for… Read More »

Electrolux (Front-Loading Washing Machine) »

Defendant: Electrolux

Consumers who purchased certain front-loading washing machines that was manufactured by Electrolux between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2011 may be eligible to choose $50 cash, or a cash rebate off retail purchase price of an approved Electrolux appliance, or reimbursement of up to $500 for out-of-pocket expenses for washer repairs or replacements. The company reached a settlement over allegations of manufacturing, advertising, and selling defective washing machines that develop mold, mildew, bacteria, and foul odors.

Read More »

Tags/Keywords

×

Quick Search (FCRA) »

Defendant: QuickSIUS, LLC, dab Quick Search

The lawsuit alleges that Quick Search reported inaccurate criminal information in background reports violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Individuals who had background reports that labeled a summary offense under Pennsylvania law as a misdemeanor or more serious offense from November 3, 2013 to March 7, 2017 may be… Read More »

Quick Search (FCRA) »

Defendant: QuickSIUS, LLC, dab Quick Search

The lawsuit alleges that Quick Search reported inaccurate criminal information in background reports violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Individuals who had background reports that labeled a summary offense under Pennsylvania law as a misdemeanor or more serious offense from November 3, 2013 to March 7, 2017 may be eligible for payment.  Individuals who had background reports that reported the same criminal offense more than once from November 3, 2013 to March 7, 2017, may be eligible for payment.

Read More »

Tags/Keywords

×

SolarCity (TCPA) »

Defendant: SolarCity

Consumers who received calls to their cell phones or two or more telemarketing calls between November 6, 2011 and October 16, 2017 regarding SolarCity products may be eligible for a pro rata share of the $15 million settlement. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone… Read More »

SolarCity (TCPA) »

Defendant: SolarCity

Consumers who received calls to their cell phones or two or more telemarketing calls between November 6, 2011 and October 16, 2017 regarding SolarCity products may be eligible for a pro rata share of the $15 million settlement. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Read More »

Tags/Keywords

×

TJX (Advertising) »

Defendant: TJX

Consumers who purchased items with a TJX “Compare At” price tag from TJ Maxx, Marshalls, or HomeGoods store in California between July 17, 2011 and December 6, 2017 and did not receive a credit or refund may be eligible for TJX merchandise credit. The company reached a settlement over allegations of… Read More »

TJX (Advertising) »

Defendant: TJX

Consumers who purchased items with a TJX “Compare At” price tag from TJ Maxx, Marshalls, or HomeGoods store in California between July 17, 2011 and December 6, 2017 and did not receive a credit or refund may be eligible for TJX merchandise credit. The company reached a settlement over allegations of misleadingly labeling the price of the merchandise.

Read More »

Tags/Keywords

×

LimeCrime.com (Data Breach) »

Defendant: LimeCrime.com

Lime Crime agreed to a settlement regarding a security breach of its website from a malicious software on a third party server.  Consumers whose personal information were on the website and may have been exposed between October 4, 2014 and February 15, 2015 may be eligible for up to $44… Read More »

LimeCrime.com (Data Breach) »

Defendant: LimeCrime.com

Lime Crime agreed to a settlement regarding a security breach of its website from a malicious software on a third party server.  Consumers whose personal information were on the website and may have been exposed between October 4, 2014 and February 15, 2015 may be eligible for up to $44 cash and 15% off coupon.

Read More »

Tags/Keywords

×

Medicredit (TCPA) »

Defendant: Medicredit

Individuals who received calls from Medicredit between July 2015 and October 2016 may be eligible for a share of the $5 million settlement. Individuals who received calls from NPAS Inc. between April 2012 and October 2016 may be eligible for a share of the $5 million settlement. The company reached… Read More »

Medicredit (TCPA) »

Defendant: Medicredit

Individuals who received calls from Medicredit between July 2015 and October 2016 may be eligible for a share of the $5 million settlement. Individuals who received calls from NPAS Inc. between April 2012 and October 2016 may be eligible for a share of the $5 million settlement. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  

Read More »

Tags/Keywords

×

Residential Credit Solutions (Forced-Placed Insurance) »

Defendant: Residential Credit Solutions

Residential Credit Solutions (“RCS”) agreed to a settlement regarding its lender-placed insurance (“LPI”) practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that RCS forced borrowers to purchase unnecessary expensive hazard, flood, or wind-only insurance. Borrowers who paid for residential LPI between January 1, 2008 and August 9, 2017 may be eligible to… Read More »

Residential Credit Solutions (Forced-Placed Insurance) »

Defendant: Residential Credit Solutions

Residential Credit Solutions (“RCS”) agreed to a settlement regarding its lender-placed insurance (“LPI”) practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that RCS forced borrowers to purchase unnecessary expensive hazard, flood, or wind-only insurance. Borrowers who paid for residential LPI between January 1, 2008 and August 9, 2017 may be eligible to receive back 6% of the premium.  

Read More »

Tags/Keywords

×

Carrington Mortgage Services LLC (Forced-Placed Insurance) »

Defendant: Carrington Mortgage Services LLC

Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, Carrington Mortgage Holdings LLC, and Carrington Holding Company LLC (collectively “Carrington”) agreed to a settlement regarding its lender-placed insurance (“LPI”) practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that Carrington forced borrowers to purchase unnecessary expensive hazard, flood, or wind-only insurance. Borrowers who paid for residential LPI between… Read More »

Carrington Mortgage Services LLC (Forced-Placed Insurance) »

Defendant: Carrington Mortgage Services LLC

Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, Carrington Mortgage Holdings LLC, and Carrington Holding Company LLC (collectively “Carrington”) agreed to a settlement regarding its lender-placed insurance (“LPI”) practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that Carrington forced borrowers to purchase unnecessary expensive hazard, flood, or wind-only insurance. Borrowers who paid for residential LPI between December 1, 2012 and August 9, 2017 may be eligible to receive back 10.5% of the premium.  

Read More »

Tags/Keywords

×