Class Action by Status
'closed' Listing
M&T Bank (Overdraft) »
Defendant:
Consumers may be eligible for a share of a $4 million settlement if they were charged one or more overdraft fees between August 21, 2006 and August 15, 2010 due to M&T Bank’s practice of reordering transactions. Class members will automatically receive payment or account credit. Final Approval granted on… Read More »
M&T Bank (Overdraft) »
Defendant:
Consumers may be eligible for a share of a $4 million settlement if they were charged one or more overdraft fees between August 21, 2006 and August 15, 2010 due to M&T Bank’s practice of reordering transactions. Class members will automatically receive payment or account credit. Final Approval granted on Mar. 4, 2015. Account credit distributed on May 8, 2015. Check distribution scheduled on May 18, 2015.
×SunTrust (Force-Placed Insurance) »
Defendant: SunTrust
SunTrust agreed to a settlement regarding its forced-placed hazard insurance practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that SunTrust forced consumers to purchase unnecessary expensive hazard insurance. The bank received kickbacks from the insurers for choosing the more-expensive policies for the homeowners. Borrowers who paid for overpriced hazard insurance premiums issued… Read More »
SunTrust (Force-Placed Insurance) »
Defendant: SunTrust
SunTrust agreed to a settlement regarding its forced-placed hazard insurance practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that SunTrust forced consumers to purchase unnecessary expensive hazard insurance. The bank received kickbacks from the insurers for choosing the more-expensive policies for the homeowners. Borrowers who paid for overpriced hazard insurance premiums issued by certain insurance companies between April 1, 2008 and June 18, 2014 may be eligible to receive back 10.5% of the premium.
×Bank of America (Credit Card Late Fee) »
Defendant: Bank of America
Current and former Bank of America credit card holders who made a payment on or before the payment due date (“Qualifying Payment”) and were assessed late payment fees between April 1, 2005 and October 19, 2006 may be eligible for up to $40 per Qualifying Payment, with maximum of 5… Read More »
Bank of America (Credit Card Late Fee) »
Defendant: Bank of America
Current and former Bank of America credit card holders who made a payment on or before the payment due date (“Qualifying Payment”) and were assessed late payment fees between April 1, 2005 and October 19, 2006 may be eligible for up to $40 per Qualifying Payment, with maximum of 5 Qualifying Payments. The company reached a settlement over allegations of failing to apply same-day credit to payments made by the credit card holders.
×Old Navy (Zip Code) »
Defendant: Old Navy
Alleges that customers were asked for a ZIP code in violation of their privacy rights between January 21, 2008 and September 18, 2014 at Old Navy, between February 14, 2010 and September 18, 2014 at Gap Outlet, and between March 4, 2010 and September 18, 2014 at Banana Republic Factory… Read More »
Old Navy (Zip Code) »
Defendant: Old Navy
Alleges that customers were asked for a ZIP code in violation of their privacy rights between January 21, 2008 and September 18, 2014 at Old Navy, between February 14, 2010 and September 18, 2014 at Gap Outlet, and between March 4, 2010 and September 18, 2014 at Banana Republic Factory Store in California. Class members may be eligible to receive a $10 voucher for use at a California Old Navy, Gap Outlet, or Banana Republic Factory Store retail store.
×Arco AmPm (Debit Card Fee) »
Defendant: Arco AmPm
Consumers who bought gas with a debit card and paid a debit card transaction fee at Oregon ARCO or ARCO ampm locations between January 1, 2001 and August 30, 2013 may be eligible for up to $200. The Oregon jury found the company overcharged debit card purchasers and failed to… Read More »
Arco AmPm (Debit Card Fee) »
Defendant: Arco AmPm
Consumers who bought gas with a debit card and paid a debit card transaction fee at Oregon ARCO or ARCO ampm locations between January 1, 2001 and August 30, 2013 may be eligible for up to $200. The Oregon jury found the company overcharged debit card purchasers and failed to properly disclose its prices when it charged a debit card transaction fee.
×Schnuck Markets, Inc. (Data Breach) »
Defendant: Schnuck Markets, Inc.
Schnuck Markets agreed to a settlement regarding a security breach of its computer systems from a malicious computer code on its systems. Consumers who conducted credit or debit card transactions at Schnucks stores between December 9, 2012 and March 30, 2013 may be eligible for reimbursement of out of pocket… Read More »
Schnuck Markets, Inc. (Data Breach) »
Defendant: Schnuck Markets, Inc.
Schnuck Markets agreed to a settlement regarding a security breach of its computer systems from a malicious computer code on its systems. Consumers who conducted credit or debit card transactions at Schnucks stores between December 9, 2012 and March 30, 2013 may be eligible for reimbursement of out of pocket expenses, fraudulent card charges, and other extraordinary unreimbursed monetary losses.
×comScore (Privacy) »
Defendant: comScore
Consumers who downloaded and installed comScore’s software onto their computers since 2005 and used their computer in interstate commerce or communication may be eligible for a pro rata share of the $14 million settlement. The company reached a settlement over allegations that its software collected information from consumers’ computers without… Read More »
comScore (Privacy) »
Defendant: comScore
Consumers who downloaded and installed comScore’s software onto their computers since 2005 and used their computer in interstate commerce or communication may be eligible for a pro rata share of the $14 million settlement. The company reached a settlement over allegations that its software collected information from consumers’ computers without getting consent from the consumer.
×HSBC (Force-Placed Insurance) »
Defendant: HSBC
HSBC agreed to a settlement regarding its forced-placed hazard insurance practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that HSBC forced consumers to purchase unnecessary expensive hazard insurance. The bank received kickbacks from the insurers for choosing the more-expensive policies for the homeowners. Borrowers who paid for overpriced hazard insurance premiums issued… Read More »
HSBC (Force-Placed Insurance) »
Defendant: HSBC
HSBC agreed to a settlement regarding its forced-placed hazard insurance practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that HSBC forced consumers to purchase unnecessary expensive hazard insurance. The bank received kickbacks from the insurers for choosing the more-expensive policies for the homeowners. Borrowers who paid for overpriced hazard insurance premiums issued by certain insurance companies between January 1, 2005 and March 24, 2014 may be eligible to receive back 13% of the premium.
ZaaZoom (Electronic Check) »
Defendant: ZaaZoom Solutions, LLC
The lawsuit alleges that ZaaZoom and other entities offering discount coupon subscriptions created a remotely created check (“RCC”) in the consumer’s name to enroll the consumer into the online membership program without the consumer’s authorization and collected membership fees from the consumer’s banking account between May 6, 2007 and September… Read More »
ZaaZoom (Electronic Check) »
Defendant: ZaaZoom Solutions, LLC
The lawsuit alleges that ZaaZoom and other entities offering discount coupon subscriptions created a remotely created check (“RCC”) in the consumer’s name to enroll the consumer into the online membership program without the consumer’s authorization and collected membership fees from the consumer’s banking account between May 6, 2007 and September 11, 2014. Class members may be eligible for $11 cash.
×TruGreen Inc. (TCPA) »
Defendant: TruGreen Inc.
Consumers who received automatic, non-emergency telephone call on their cell phone from TruGreen Inc. without consenting to receive such calls on or after May 29, 2009 may be eligible for up to $500 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Read More »
TruGreen Inc. (TCPA) »
Defendant: TruGreen Inc.
Consumers who received automatic, non-emergency telephone call on their cell phone from TruGreen Inc. without consenting to receive such calls on or after May 29, 2009 may be eligible for up to $500 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
×WaMu (Option ARM loan) »
Defendant: Washington Mutual
California borrowers who obtained Option ARM loan between January 16, 2004 and December 2, 2014 may be eligible for up to $716. The company agreed to a $10 million settlement over allegations of failing to fully disclose the terms of the Option ARM loan documents. Read More »
WaMu (Option ARM loan) »
Defendant: Washington Mutual
California borrowers who obtained Option ARM loan between January 16, 2004 and December 2, 2014 may be eligible for up to $716. The company agreed to a $10 million settlement over allegations of failing to fully disclose the terms of the Option ARM loan documents.
×Porsche (Cayenne Coolant Pipes) »
Defendant: Porsche
The lawsuit alleges that the V8 engine of certain 2003-2006 Porsche Cayenne vehicles were equipped with plastic coolant pipes that can prematurely degrade or fracture. Consumers who purchased or leased those models may be eligible for cash reimbursement for past or future repair expenses. Read More »
Porsche (Cayenne Coolant Pipes) »
Defendant: Porsche
The lawsuit alleges that the V8 engine of certain 2003-2006 Porsche Cayenne vehicles were equipped with plastic coolant pipes that can prematurely degrade or fracture. Consumers who purchased or leased those models may be eligible for cash reimbursement for past or future repair expenses.
×Bill Me Later (TCPA) »
Defendant: Bill Me Later
Consumers who received pre-recorded telephone calls on their cell or landline phone from entities working on behalf of Bill Me Later between June 15, 2008 and July 24, 2014 may be eligible for up to $500 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer… Read More »
Bill Me Later (TCPA) »
Defendant: Bill Me Later
Consumers who received pre-recorded telephone calls on their cell or landline phone from entities working on behalf of Bill Me Later between June 15, 2008 and July 24, 2014 may be eligible for up to $500 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
×Truvia (Natural Sweetener) »
Defendant: Cargill Inc.
Consumers who bought any Truvia products between July 1, 2008 and July 24, 2014 may be eligible for up to $45 cash or $90 voucher. The companies reached a settlement over allegations of falsely advertising the product as “natural” even though they contained that were “highly processed” or derived from… Read More »
Truvia (Natural Sweetener) »
Defendant: Cargill Inc.
Consumers who bought any Truvia products between July 1, 2008 and July 24, 2014 may be eligible for up to $45 cash or $90 voucher. The companies reached a settlement over allegations of falsely advertising the product as “natural” even though they contained that were “highly processed” or derived from genetically modified organisms.
×Bank of the West (TCPA) »
Defendant: Bank of the West
Consumers who received automatic, non-emergency telephone call on their cell or landline phone from Bank of the West between November 2, 2008 and July 22, 2014 may be eligible for up to $50 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Read More »
Bank of the West (TCPA) »
Defendant: Bank of the West
Consumers who received automatic, non-emergency telephone call on their cell or landline phone from Bank of the West between November 2, 2008 and July 22, 2014 may be eligible for up to $50 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
×