• filter:
  • 1 234518
  • Page
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
rated:
Please let's start a sticky for Class Action Settlements. So many times, a lot of consumers miss out on collecting what they're lawfully owed because they haven't been properly informed.
Please post all Class Actions here.
Thank you.

Ads by Google
Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Just received a check for the exact same amount today.

niniss (Jul. 28, 2014 @ 5:19p) |

got my 25.80 transunion check today too

Squeezer99 (Jul. 28, 2014 @ 6:13p) |

Squeezer99 (Jul. 28, 2014 @ 6:16p) |

Here is a good web site for info on upcoming and approved Class Actions:

Link

rated:
Here's one for a start:
TransUnion Settlement.

rated:
There are sites like this however most of them do not have links to claim forms! That's all I care about! The claim form!

rated:
This is an outstanding idea. Moderators, would greatly appreciate it if this is made as a sticky

rated:

rated:
I am classy guy, and i am always looking for some action, so i vote YES...A

rated:
This is an old one still awaiting settlement

Farmers Group

rated:
Yes, we need more FW users to submit fraudulent claims!

rated:
qube said:   Yes, we need more FW users to submit fraudulent claims!

Why fraudulent? I missed a lot of legit class action lawsuits because I forgot to check back for a claim form and no one posted a link.. Nothing fraudulent there..

rated:
There are plenty of people on here that pull all sorts of downright ILLEGAL shenanigans for a whopping $15. That is just pathetic. I guarantee there will be plenty of people making bogus claims to get "free money."

If you have a legit claim you will get contacted. That is what decent lawyers do that handle these sorts of suits. And if you don't....who cares? Do you really need such a small amount of money?

rated:
qube said:   There are plenty of people on here that pull all sorts of downright ILLEGAL shenanigans for a whopping $15. That is just pathetic. I guarantee there will be plenty of people making bogus claims to get "free money."

If you have a legit claim you will get contacted. That is what decent lawyers do that handle these sorts of suits. And if you don't....who cares? Do you really need such a small amount of money?



I fully agree with you..but judging the tone of the thread so far...you're fighting a losing battle.

rated:
qube said:   And if you don't....who cares? Do you really need such a small amount of money?

The AT&T class action that's in it's own thread had a payment to consumers for $1000 per phone line and most CA consumers were likely unaware of the issue when the deadline for joining the class came up.

rated:
qube said:   There are plenty of people on here that pull all sorts of downright ILLEGAL shenanigans for a whopping $15. That is just pathetic. I guarantee there will be plenty of people making bogus claims to get "free money."

If you have a legit claim you will get contacted. That is what decent lawyers do that handle these sorts of suits. And if you don't....who cares? Do you really need such a small amount of money?


Thank you for generalizing that none of us are rightful claimants. I'll respect you in the morning.

rated:
C'mon now, more insults and OT posts, lets see how fast we can get this good idea deleted by a mod.

rated:
qube said:   There are plenty of people on here that pull all sorts of downright ILLEGAL shenanigans for a whopping $15. That is just pathetic. I guarantee there will be plenty of people making bogus claims to get "free money."

If you have a legit claim you will get contacted. That is what decent lawyers do that handle these sorts of suits. And if you don't....who cares? Do you really need such a small amount of money?



This is preposterous...every process has flaws, doesnt mean the process should get eliminated. There are so many people who will get benefitted from the thread. People abusing the system will always exist. Look at the bright side of things...

rated:

rated:
That AT&T settlement maybe applies to 7,000 people....and only in California. I'm quite sure that all 7,000 of them are active FW members and monitoring the thread closely. What I am sure about is that the lawyers were able to figure out who to contact. It's in their best interest to round up everyone so they maximize their fees.

Anyone who sues Ferrero thinking that claims of Nutella being the slightest bit healthy should be chemically sterilized.

rated:
skarydrunkguy said:   C'mon now, more insults and OT posts, lets see how fast we can get this good idea deleted by a mod.

OK.

Your wife is good in bed.

rated:
This is an FYI. Claim period has passed.


Claim Number: 96
Control Number: 6267262788

Legal Notice

A pending Settlement concerning auto dialing and telephone solicitations to current and former Sprint customers could affect your rights.
Para ver este aviso en español, visite www.PalmerSolicitationCallSettlement.com o llame 1-800-465-4481
Subject to Court approval, a proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Sprint Solutions, Inc. (“Sprint”).
The case is known as Sandra L. Palmer v. Sprint Solutions, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (“Court”), No. 09-cv-01211-JLR.

Who is a Class Member?

You may be a Class Member if you were an individual Sprint customer on or after July 23, 2005 through June 13, 2011 who, while a customer, received a commercial telephone solicitation call from Sprint when you either: (a) lived in Washington State and were called using an automatic dialing and announcing device; (b) lived in Washington State and were called less than one year after asking not to receive Sprint solicitation calls; or (c) lived in the U.S. and were called more than 30 days after you asked not to receive Sprint solicitation calls. The class exists only as a part of the Settlement. If the Settlement is not ultimately approved by the Court, the class will no longer exist. The litigation between Ms. Palmer and Sprint will return to the way it was before the Settlement.
What are the benefits?

Sprint has agreed to pay $5.5 million into a Settlement Fund (“Fund”). Eligible Class Members with qualified claims will receive a percentage share of money out of the Settlement Fund based on the number of valid and timely claims, as described in further detail in the Settlement Agreement. Settlement benefits range from $100-$500 per call up to $400-$2,000 for each category, with a maximum not to exceed $4,400, but you may receive less after deductions from the Fund and percentage reductions depending on the number of qualified claims. It is not possible to predict how much money you will get until all claims have been submitted and after other deductions from the Fund as described below. Detailed information about the Settlement benefits can be obtained by calling the toll-free number or visiting the website below. Sprint has also agreed to replace its current pre-recorded message heard when a consumer calls the telephone number provided in a pre-recorded identification message with an agreed version.
What are your rights?

If eligible, you may get money. Submit a Claim Form postmarked or filed online by November 21, 2011, to:

Palmer Solicitation Call Settlement
c/o GCG, Inc.
P.O. Box 9713
Dublin, OH 43017-5613

Exclude yourself from the lawsuit and keep your individual right to sue Sprint by sending a written request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator postmarked by September 21, 2011. If you do not exclude yourself, you will be bound by the terms of the Settlement and lose your right to sue regarding the settled claims. You may speak to your own attorney at your own expense for help.

Do not exclude yourself. You or your lawyer has the right to appear before the Court and object to the Settlement, including the request for attorneys’ fees, at your expense. Written objections must be filed and received by Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel by September 21, 2011. You will be bound by the terms of the Settlement even if your objection is rejected.

Do nothing. You will not receive money and will lose the right to sue regarding the settled claims. You will be considered part of the Settlement Class and bound by the Court’s decisions.

The Court will determine whether to approve the Settlement at a Fairness Hearing on October 21, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, WA 98101. Class Counsel will also request that the Court approve their attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount not to exceed 30% of the Fund (or $1,650,000) as well as a service award to the Class Representative of $20,000. Class counsel shall file with the Court and post to the website their motion for approval of their fees and the Class Representative fee no later than August 22, 2011. All of these amounts will be paid from the Fund, along with the costs of notice and administration. You may ask to appear at the hearing, but you don’t have to.
Who represents you?

The Court has appointed the law firm of Williamson & Williams as Class Counsel.
This is a summary. Please visit the website below or call the toll free number for more information.

www.PalmerSolicitationCallSettlement.com 1-800-465-4481

rated:

rated:
Phillips/Magnavox http://www.philipsplasmatvsettlement.com/

Claim period ends tomorrow.

rated:
Reebok Easy Tone products--

http://www.reeboksettlement.com/

The lawsuit alleges that Reebok violated certain state laws regarding the marketing and sale of toning shoes and apparel. Reebok denies all wrongdoing. The Court did not decide which side was right. Instead, the parties have decided to settle. The parties believe the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and it provides substantial benefits to the Class.

To be eligible for a payment, Class Members must send in a completed claim form electronically submitted no later than April 10, 2012 or postmarked no later than April 10, 2012.

rated:
Leslie's Pool Supply. Looks like injured parties are eligible for a $25 store voucher.

site is-- https://lesliessettlement.com/

WHO IS INCLUDED
If you purchased a product from a Leslie’s Pool store in California during the period of time between March 14, 2010 and February 9, 2012, using a credit card, and the clerk requested your address, e-mail address, phone number, or ZIP code, then you may be entitled to a benefit from a class action settlement.

Claim Filing Deadline: May 29, 2012
Objection / Exclusion Deadline: May 29, 2012
Request to Speak at Hearing Deadline: May 29, 2012
Fairness Hearing: June 20, 2012

rated:
Wells Fargo HELOC

***NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT***

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Marika Hamilton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Case No. 4:09-CV-04152 CW


(Former Customers must submit a Claim Form by June 25, 2012 to obtain settlement benefits)


If WELLS FARGO SUSPENDED OR REDUCED YOUR HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT (“HELOC”) you may be entitled to BENEFITS from a class action settlement

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer or a lawsuit against you.

You need not live in California to participate.

http://www.helocsettlement.com/

rated:
Verizon Landline Billing

www.verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.com

A class action lawsuit settlement has been reached that will make it possible for Verizon landline customers to receive 100% refunds for unauthorized third-party charges they incurred between 2005 and 2012.

The Verizon third-party billing settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit alleging that Verizon billed its landline phone customers for charges from third-party companies that were not authorized by the customer (a practice known as “cramming”), in violation of federal and state law.

Verizon denies any wrongdoing, but has agreed to settle the class action lawsuit to avoid ongoing litigation.

“Unfortunately, cramming is widespread today because people often don’t even realize that they have been billed. Many consumers have been billed for months and even years for these third-party charges without even knowing it,” said one of the Plaintiff attorneys representing Verizon customers.

The Verizon third-party billing class action lawsuit settlement covers all Verizon landline customers nationwide (including individuals, businesses and local governmental entities) who were billed for third-party charges from April 27, 2005 through February 28, 2012. Class Members will be able to recover 100% of all money they paid in unauthorized third-party charges during that period by submitting a “Full Payment Claim” or recover a refund of $40 by submitting a “Flat Payment Claim.” Both forms will be available at www.verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.com and must be submitted by November 15, 2012. There is no dollar cap on the monetary recovery to be paid under the Settlement.

Some settlement Class Members may have a claim for hundreds or thousands of dollars in refunds from the Verizon third-party billing class action settlement. That's why it's important that Verizon landline customers take advantage of one of the benefits available to them under the class action lawsuit settlement, which provides a free summary of all third-party charges they incurred upon request.

rated:
Summer Infant/toys r us Baby Monitor

http://www.videobabymonitorsettlement.com/

rated:
French Pinot Noir

http://www.frenchpinotnoirsettlement.com/CaseInfo.aspx?pas=frenc...

In 2010, the French government convicted several French wine producers and distributors for selling, as pinot noir, wine that contained less pinot noir than required by French law. There was nothing wrong with this wine other than it contained less of the pinot noir varietal than required in order to be labeled "pinot noir." The defendants in this case bought wine labeled pinot noir from these French suppliers, receiving in each case official French documentation stating that the wine was pinot noir. The companies believed that the wine they received was pinot noir. There is no way to determine scientifically if the wine did or did not contain the required amount of pinot noir.

The plaintiffs allege that this wine was still mislabeled when it was sold to consumers in the United States. The defendants deny these allegations and contend that if they received any mislabeled wine, they themselves were victims of the convicted French suppliers. Nevertheless, the defendants have agreed to make certain reimbursements to consumers who purchased the wines in question in order to assure customer satisfaction and resolve the claims made in this lawsuit without expending more time and money.

Important Dates and Deadlines:

Deadline for excluding yourself: Received by March 9, 2012
Deadline for objecting: Received by March 9, 2012
Deadline for filing a claim: Postmarked by May 24, 2012
Final approval hearing: Scheduled for April 23, 2012

rated:
This class action is pending approval. Will follow up with claim filing info when available.


Brazilian Blowout Reaches $4.5M Class Action Settlement

Brazilian Blowout has agreed to pay a $4.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to warn consumers that its popular hair-straightening product emits toxic formaldehyde gas, a known carcinogen, even though the product labels said it was "formaldehyde-free."

Under the terms of the Brazilian Blowout settlement, consumers who claim they were harmed by the product can receive a $35 payment for each bottle of Brazilian Blowout they purchased. In addition, Brazilian Blowout can no longer market its product as "formaldehyde-free," and must provide more detailed instructions on how to use it safely.

The proposed $4.5 million Brazilian Blowout class action lawsuit settlement is pending approval from Judge Elihu Berle of Los Angeles Superior Court.

rated:
This is an FYI of current class action litigation...

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/07/Apple.pdf

Are you unhappy with Siri? You're not alone. A federal class action lawsuit claims the voice-activated Siri assistant on the Apple iPhone 4S doesn't work as advertised, and is simply a ploy to lure customers into paying $100 more for the 4S.

The iPhone Siri class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of consumers who purchased the iPhone 4S because commercials made the voice-activated "Siri" feature seem easy to use and accurate. It claims consumers would not have purchased the more expensive iPhone 4S if they knew the Siri feature did not work as advertised.

The class action lawsuit says Apple began its "deceptive marketing campaign" in October 2011 with press releases touting the Siri feature as an "intelligent assistant that helps you get things done just by asking." Apple claimed in advertisements that Siri would understand spoken questions and commands, such as asking "Will I need an umbrella this weekend?" or asking it to remind the user of important appointments. In all the ads, Siri quickly gave the users relevant answers. This is not the same performance users are experiencing in real life, however, the class action lawsuit says.

"[Apple's] advertisements regarding the Siri feature are fundamentally and designedly false and misleading," the iPhone 4S Siri class action lawsuit says. The fact that the iPhone 4S is $100 more than the iPhone 4, and that the iPhone 4S's Siri feature does not perform as advertised, renders the iPhone 4S "merely a more expensive iPhone 4."

The class action lawsuit says Apple "had actual or constructive knowledge of the iPhone 4S's shortcomings prior to its distribution" but buried this fact in the Apple website with the vague sentence: "Siri is currently in beta and we'll continue to improve it over time."

The class action lawsuit claims Apple exploited the fact that consumers trusted Apple's ads depicting Siri as reliable and worth paying the extra money to have. "If Plaintiff and Class had been aware of these suppressed facts, Plaintiff and Class would not have purchased the iPhone 4S at the price sold by Defendants," the complaint states.

The iPhone 4S Siri class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased, for use and not resale, an Apple iPhone 4S. It is seeking restitution, statutory and compensatory damages, and injunctive relief for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, unfair competition, and violations of California consumer law.

rated:
This is an FYI to pending movie candy gouging class action litigation.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/07/Popcorn.pdf

Joshua Thompson has filed a class action lawsuit against American Multi-Cinemas (AMC Theatres) for jacking up the prices of its junk food to nearly three times what the items cost at local stores and fast-food restaurants. He says AMC moviegoers are forced to pay the inflated prices because AMC prohibits patrons from bringing refreshments, snacks and food into the theater.

This obvious price gouging is a blatant violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, he claims in the class action lawsuit.

Thompson says that on December 26, 2011, he purchased a large 32 oz. Coke for $1.06 from a McDonald's located 1.33 miles from the AMC Theatre in Livonia, Mich., and a 3.5 oz. box of "Goobers" for $1.67 from a CVS pharmacy located 1.27 miles away from the theater. When he saw a sign posted at AMC prohibiting people from bringing in their own snacks, he was forced to buy the same items within the theater for a total charge of $8.00 -- three times the amount he paid for the exact same items purchased outside the theater.

The AMC Theatre class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all Michigan residents who purchased various food, snack and beverage items from AMC within any of its Michigan theaters.

Thompson is seeking class damages of $25,000 to $5 million in refunds and penalties against AMC Theatres for violating the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits "unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce."

rated:
Acer Computer recovery settlement

Details, eligibility, and claim filing here-- https://acerrecoverysettlement.com/

Claim filing deadline is March 14, 2012

rated:
I hope Michigan boy sues the county and state fairs, any sort of church event, baseball/football/hockey stadiums, high school football games, Boy Scouts, etc etc because of this. I especially hope he goes after those Girl Scouts since I know those cookies are over-priced.

Who is forcing people to buy that stuff? Last I checked none of those companies had a gun to your head. Who can't sit through a movie without eating 14,000 calories of popcorn and other rubbish?

rated:
qube said:   I hope Michigan boy sues the county and state fairs, any sort of church event, baseball/football/hockey stadiums, high school football games, Boy Scouts, etc etc because of this. I especially hope he goes after those Girl Scouts since I know those cookies are over-priced.

Who is forcing people to buy that stuff? Last I checked none of those companies had a gun to your head. Who can't sit through a movie without eating 14,000 calories of popcorn and other rubbish?


When you are at the county and state fairs, there is some amount of competition among vendors, which tends to regulate (through the free market system) pricing. At the theater, since there is no competition (they don't allow outside food), you are "forced" to buy their product (or, as you suggest, nothing at all). While you appear to be taking the reactionary "self control" approach to the argument, understand that businesses also have a responsibility to behave appropriately. The underlying basis of the allegation in this type of suit (and the state consumer laws it references) is that the businesses are NOT behaving properly with regard to this social contract because they are gouging "captive" consumers.

Instead of shooting from the hip with socio-political opinion, maybe you could contribute to the topic of the thread, which is about the class actions themselves, not whether they're consistent with your personal beliefs.

rated:
I'm not sure I've ever agreed with qube ; however, in this case I'm in 100% agreement. I'm a big advocate for consumer rights, but I wish AMC would (have) file(d) a counter-claim for malicious prosecution, extortion, etc... and wins. AMC is not the only movie theater people can go to. Everyone knows concessions are expensive at movie theaters. Someone on FW said in another thread "find a good place for a popcorn stand and build a movie theater around it." Companies should be able to set their own prices for their own products so long as they aren't deceiving or defrauding the consumer.

Many restaurants don't let you bring in other food/drinks. If I go to a high-end restaurant and they charge $6 for a soda, does that mean that I should be able to sue them for $5M. It's just ridiculous.

rated:
jetsfan92588 said:   Many restaurants don't let you bring in other food/drinks. If I go to a high-end restaurant and they charge $6 for a soda, does that mean that I should be able to sue them for $5M.

If laws governing such behavior exist (like Michigan, as asserted in this case), yes. And if that's ridiculous, change the law. Until then, the law should be adhered to, or the business should "choose to" not do business there (just as you have indicated that a customer can "choose to" not buy their product).

I don't necessarily agree with the philosophical merits of the case, but the legal merits are sound, and reference real laws that may have been broken. As such, the litigant (and the class) have a right to relief. Again... the (supposed) topic of this thread.

rated:
labboypro said:   jetsfan92588 said:   Many restaurants don't let you bring in other food/drinks. If I go to a high-end restaurant and they charge $6 for a soda, does that mean that I should be able to sue them for $5M.

If laws governing such behavior exist (like Michigan, as asserted in this case), yes. And if that's ridiculous, change the law. Until then, the law should be adhered to, or the business should "choose to" not do business there (just as you have indicated that a customer can "choose to" not buy their product).

I don't necessarily agree with the philosophical merits of the case, but the legal merits are sound, and reference real laws that may have been broken. As such, the litigant (and the class) have a right to relief. Again... the (supposed) topic of this thread.


I wasn't saying the legal merits aren't sound as I'm not a lawyer and wouldn't be able to make a judgement on that even if I wanted to. All I'm saying is that I hope the plaintiff loses and has to pay the other side something. Also, I'm not attacking your post either, and I'm happy you posted it (as well as all the other posts you made). I also feel that if this guy wins, there's nothing wrong with filing a claim if you were affected. As for this thread, it is meant to list class actions, but I don't think there's anything wrong with commenting on a particular case in the discussions. The quicksummary can have a list that's free of comments if people don't want to bother reading through the discussions.

rated:
LG/Kenmore refrigerator light class action

http://www.mclennansettlement.com/

A federal court has approved a class action lawsuit settlement with LG that will provide “complete reimbursement” to consumers who purchased certain LG and Kenmore-branded French Door Refrigerators and had to pay to repair a defect that caused their interior lights to remain on when the doors were closed.

rated:
A federal class action lawsuit claims multiple year models of Ford E-Series and F-Series pickup trucks have defective fuel tank linings that flake off and clog the fuel system, causing sudden loss of power.

The Ford defective fuel tank class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased or leased any of the following Ford pickup trucks:

2004-2007 Ford E-150
2004-2007 Ford E-250
2004-2007 Ford E-350
2004-2007 Ford E-450
1999-2008 Ford F-250 SD
1999-2008 Ford F-350 SD
2003, 2005-2008 Ford F-440 SD
2005-2008 F-550 SD
2004-2008 F-650 SD
2004-2008 F-750 SD

Suit papers here-- http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/15/FordCA.pdf

rated:
Volkswagen Bluetooth settlement

https://christensensettlement.com/

The Settlement Class includes all persons who purchased or leased, not for resale, in the United States and Puerto Rico, the following vehicles distributed by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.: Model year 2010 Volkswagen Jetta Sedans (in trim levels Limited, SE, and Wolfsburg), model year 2010 Jetta SportWagens (in trim levels SE and TDI) and model year 2010 Golfs (in trim level TDI), as well as model year 2010 Volkswagen Jetta Sedan S, Jetta SportWagon S, and Golf 2.5 vehicles originally purchased or leased with the Bluetooth® option.

Claim filing deadline is 03/27/2012

Skipping 664 Messages...
rated:
sloppyjo said:   Googled case #00-cv-4729  looks like it was back in 2008...could get free credit monitoring option, I chose $....it was for something to do with taking out auto loans, etc. .....sure was a long time coming.
  http://www.icfe.info/financial-news-press-releases/2008/08-15-Im...

http://www.lb7.uscourts.gov/documents/10-11541.pdf 

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014