Class Action by Status
'closed' Listing
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.
×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.
×Bank of America (Uber) »
Defendant: Bank of America
Current and former account holders may be eligible for cash payment or account credit from $22 million settlement if they were charged overdraft fees for debit card transactions involving Uber between January 1, 2012 and December 30, 2016. Class members will automatically receive payment or account credit. Final Approval Hearing is… Read More »
Bank of America (Uber) »
Defendant: Bank of America
Current and former account holders may be eligible for cash payment or account credit from $22 million settlement if they were charged overdraft fees for debit card transactions involving Uber between January 1, 2012 and December 30, 2016. Class members will automatically receive payment or account credit.
Final Approval Hearing is Aug. 8, 2018.
×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.
×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.
×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.
×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.
×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.
×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.
×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.
×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.
×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.
×Sam’s Club (Freshness Guarantee) »
Defendant: Sam’s Club
Consumers who bought certain “Fresh Products” from a Sam’s Club and did not receive the full value of the Freshness Guarantee when returning the product during the class period (various dates depending on the state) may be eligible for $10 gift card. The company agreed to a settlement over allegations… Read More »
Sam’s Club (Freshness Guarantee) »
Defendant: Sam’s Club
Consumers who bought certain “Fresh Products” from a Sam’s Club and did not receive the full value of the Freshness Guarantee when returning the product during the class period (various dates depending on the state) may be eligible for $10 gift card. The company agreed to a settlement over allegations of not honoring the Freshness Guarantee of Double the Member’s money back OR refund of the original purchase price and replacement of the item.
×Eddie Bauer LLC (Telephone Recording) »
Defendant: Eddie Bauer LLC
California residents who called and spoke with an Eddie Bauer representative between July 1, 2014 and January 13, 2015 while physically in California and did not consent to the call being recorded may be eligible for cash payment. The company reached a settlement over allegations of recording telephone calls without… Read More »
Eddie Bauer LLC (Telephone Recording) »
Defendant: Eddie Bauer LLC
California residents who called and spoke with an Eddie Bauer representative between July 1, 2014 and January 13, 2015 while physically in California and did not consent to the call being recorded may be eligible for cash payment. The company reached a settlement over allegations of recording telephone calls without notice or consent of California residents.
×NPAS Solutions, LLC (TCPA) »
Defendant: NPAS Solutions, LLC
Individuals who received autodialed calls on their cell phones from NPAS Solutions between March 28, 2013 and December 4, 2017 that were designated as a wrong number may eligible for a share of the $1.4 million settlement. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer… Read More »
NPAS Solutions, LLC (TCPA) »
Defendant: NPAS Solutions, LLC
Individuals who received autodialed calls on their cell phones from NPAS Solutions between March 28, 2013 and December 4, 2017 that were designated as a wrong number may eligible for a share of the $1.4 million settlement. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
×