≡ Menu

Appeals Court in California Reverses District Court’s Order Dismissing Spokeo Class Action Lawsuit Brought Under FCRA Over Publishing Of Consumers’ Personal Information.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reportedly reversed the district court’s dismissal, based on lack of Article III standing, of a Spokeo class action lawsuit filed in the Central District of California (styled Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-05306-ODW-AGR, Appeal No. 11-56843) alleging that Spokeo operates a website, Spokeo.com, that provides users with information about other individuals, including contact data, marital status, age, occupation, economic health, and wealth level and that Spokeo willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq by publishing inaccurate personal information about consumers on its website, according to the appeals Court’s opinion in the Spokeo Class Action Lawsuit.

On appeal, Spokeo reportedly contended that plaintiff could not sue under the FCRA without showing actual harm.  In finding that the plaintiff in the Spokeo Class Action Lawsuit had Article III standing, the Court explained, among other things, that when “the statutory cause of action does not require proof of actual damages, a plaintiff can suffer a violation of the statutory right without suffering actual damages.”

We previously wrote about the Spokeo class action lawsuit complaint.

If you have thoughts on the 9th Circuit’s opinion in the Robins v. Spokeo Class Action Lawsuit regarding Article III Standing, Share Your Class Action Comments below.

{ 0 comments }

Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Hewlett-Packard Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Power Supply Unit Defect & Random Freezing, Restarting and Shutting Down of Certain HP Computers.

A federal court has reportedly denied Hewlett-Packard Company’s (“Hewlett-Packard’s” “or HP’s” or “Defendant’s”) motion to dismiss a consumer class action complaint against Hewlett-Packard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (styled David Elias v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. CV 12-CV-00421-LHK) alleging, among other things, that HP fraudulently sold computers equipped with Power Supply Units or PSUs that were incapable of providing adequate power to the included components (including an Advanced Micro Devices AMD graphics card), causing the HP computers to randomly freeze, restart, or shut down, and that HP failed to disclose this defect to purchasers, according to the court’s order denying motion to dismiss plaintiff’s third amended complaint in the Hewlett-Packard Class Action Lawsuit.

The Hewlett-Packard Class Action Lawsuit reportedly asserts legal claims for alleged violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act or CLRA, the California False Advertising Law or FAL, California’s Unfair Competition Law or UCL, fraud, breach of express warranty, and breach of the implied warranty under the Song–Beverly Act.

The Court reportedly held that Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts in his third amended complaint to support a plausible inference that HP had knowledge of the alleged defective PSUs, and that Plaintiff adequately alleged active concealment and exclusive knowledge.

The plaintiff in the HP Class Action Lawsuit reportedly has sought to represent a nationwide class of persons who between December 7, 2007 and the present “purchased . . . a computer, directly from Defendant, with an included power supply unit having a rated capacity lower than (1) the total combined wattage of all internal PC components and peripherals or (2) the capacity recommended by the manufacturer of any included component or peripheral.”

If You Have Thoughts On The Hewlett-Packard Class Action Lawsuit, Share Your HP Class Action Lawsuit Comments Below.

{ 2 comments }

If You Purchased Banana Boat Continuous-Spray, Sun-Care Products, You May Be Entitled to Benefits from the Banana Boat Class Action Lawsuit Settlement.

Banana Boat class actionEnergizer Personal Care, LLC (“Energizer” or “Defendant”) has reportedly agreed to a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against Energizer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (captioned as In re UltraMist Sunscreen Litigation, Case No. 13-cv-131) alleging, among other things, that Energizer failed to adequately compensate consumers for the lost value of certain Banana Boat UltraMist Products that were subject to a voluntary Market Withdrawal due to a potential risk of igniting on the skin if contact was made with a source of ignition, according to the Banana Boat class action settlement notice.

The proposed Banana Boat settlement class reportedly includes, unless otherwise excluded, all residents of the United States or its territories who purchased one or more of the following Banana Boat UltraMist products (with the following UPCs) between January of 2010 and October of 2012:

  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 15 Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965600979-8
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 30 Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965600878-4
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 30 Bonus Continuous Spray | 8oz 7965600955-2
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Ultra Defense SPF 30 Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965604626-7
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Ultra Defense SPF 30 Bonus Continuous Spray | 8oz 7965600956-9
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 30 Family Size Continuous Spray | 9.5oz 7965605167-4
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 50 Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965600933-0
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Ultra Defense SPF 50 Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965604492-8
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Ultra Defense SPF 50 Bonus Continuous Spray | 8oz 7965604549-9
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Kids SPF 50 Clear Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965604495-9
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 50 Bonus Continuous Spray | 8oz 7965604551-2
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 50+ Continuous Spray | 9.5oz. 7965605110-0
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Ultra Defense SPF 85 Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965604654-0
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 85 Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965604665-6
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Kids SPF 85 Continuous Spray | 6oz 7965604916-9
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Ultra Defense SPF 85 Bonus Continuous Spray | 8oz 7965604677-9
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 85 Bonus Continuous Spray | 8oz 7965604679-3
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SFP30 Continuous Spray 2pk | 6oz 7965605374-6
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 50 Continuous Spray 2pk | 6oz 7965605028-8
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 30 Continuous Spray 2pk | 6oz w/Sport Lotion & Lip 7965605389-0
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 30 Continuous Spray | 8oz w/Sport Lip Balm 7965607951-7
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 30 Continuous Spray | 6oz w/$1 Instant Redeemable Coupon 7965607975-3
  • Banana Boat UltraMist Sport SPF 50 Continuous Spray 3ct | 6oz 7965605464-4

The Banana Boat class action settlement reportedly provides that class members who file valid and timely claims (no later than June 30, 2014) can recover vouchers for replacement products, cash and/or coupons.  There are reportedly four categories of benefits, which depend on how many Banana Boat UltraMist products were purchased, whether they were used fully and whether such purchases can be substantiated.  Claim forms are available online at SunscreenClassAction.com

For additional information about the Banana Boat class action settlement you can write the UltraMist Settlement Administrator at Sunscreen Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 43240 Providence, RI 02940-3240, call 1-800-219-8798 or visit the UltraMist settlement website at SunscreenClassAction.com

If You Have Thoughts On The Banana Boat UltraMist Sunscreen Class Action Settlement, Share Your Banana Boat Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

Facebook Users File Privacy Class Action Lawsuit Complaint Against Facebook For Allegedly Intercepting and Scanning Private Facebook Messages.

Facebook class actionFacebook, Inc. (“Facebook” or “Defendant”), the largest online social network in the world, has reportedly been named as a defendant in a privacy class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (styled Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc., Case No. CV 5:2013-cv-05996) alleging, among other things, that Facebook violated consumers’ privacy by reading its users’ personal, private Facebook messages without their consent, according to the Facebook class action lawsuit complaint.

The proposed Facebook class action lawsuit is reportedly brought on behalf of the following putative class members:

“All natural person Facebook users located within the United States who have sent or received private messages where such message included URLs in the content, from within two years before the filing of this action up through and including the date of the judgment in this case.”

The Facebook class action lawsuit complaint reportedly asserts legal claims for alleged violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq., California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 630, et seq., and California’s Unfair Competition Law California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class members in the Facebook class action law suit reportedly seek, among other things, an order certifying the case as a class action, declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Facebook, an award of statutory damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2520, for the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or $10,000, an award of statutory damages pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 637.2, for the greater of $5,000 or three times the amount of actual damages sustained by Plaintiffs and Class Members, and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs.

If You Have Thoughts On The Facebook Private Message Class Action Lawsuit, Share Your Facebook Class Action Lawsuit Comments Below.

{ 6 comments }

If you initiated a Western Union money transfer in the U.S. and your money transfer was not redeemed within 60 days, You May Be Entitled to Benefits from the Western Union Class Action Lawsuit Settlement.

Western Union class actionWestern Union Financial Services, Inc. and The Western Union Company (“Western Union” or “Defendants”) have reportedly agreed to a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against Western Union in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (captioned as Tennille v. The Western Union Co., Case No. 09-cv-00938-JLK) alleging, among other things, that Western Union failed to timely notify its customers of unredeemed Western Union Transactions in the U.S. who used Western Union’s money transfer services, according to the Western Union money transfer class action settlement notice.

The proposed Western Union settlement class reportedly includes, unless otherwise excluded,

All persons who initiated any Western Union Transaction (i.e., a consumer-to-consumer, consumer-to-business, or business-to-consumer money transfer transaction initiated using Western Union’s services, such as Dinero En Minutos, Envio Plus, Equity Accelerator, Mexico Giro Paisano, Money in Minutes, Money Transfer, Next Day, Quick Cash, Quick Collect, Quick Pay, Speedpay, and Swiftpay) in the U.S. on or after January 1, 2001 and on or before the date of Preliminary Approval, whose Western Union Transaction was not redeemed within 60 calendar days; and who either  have not claimed their money transfer funds (nor had that money claimed on their behalf) from Western Union; or were informed by written communication that their money was about to escheat to the state, district, territory, or United States jurisdiction in which their money transfer was initiated, and who sought and received a refund of their money but did not receive a payment for interest that Western Union earned on the money.

The Western Union class action settlement reportedly provides that Western Union will create a Class Settlement Fund reportedly estimated to be about $180 million from which class members can make claims.  The Western Union settlement also reportedly will create procedures to help class members recover money that was escheated as well as certain prospective relief regarding notices to customers of unredeemed funds.  Claim forms reportedly will be mailed to settlement class members after the settlement become effective and all appeals resolved and the deadline to file the claims will reportedly be 180 calendar days after the Settlement Effective Date.  The Western Union settlement has reportedly been approved by the district court, but appeals have been filed.

For additional information about the Western Union class action settlement you can write the Tennille v. Western Union Settlement Administrator at PO Box 3058, Portland, OR 97208-3058, send an email to info@MoneyTransferSettlement.com, call 1-877-316-3151 or visit the Western Union class action settlement website at moneytransfersettlement.com.

If You Have Thoughts On The Western Union Money Transfer Class Action Settlement, Share Your Western Union Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 6 comments }

1-800 Contacts Class Action Settlement Given Final Approval By District Court Judge

A federal judge has given final approval to the 1-800 Contacts class action settlement of the lawsuit filed against 1-800 Contacts, Inc. in the U.S. District for the Southern District of California (styled as Robert Reed v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-02359 JM (BGS)) alleging, among other things, that 1-800 Contacts violated California Penal Code Section 630 by recording confidential telephonic communications with class members without obtaining their consent, according to the Court’s order granting final approval of the 1-800 Contacts class action settlement and motion for attorneys fees, litigation expenses and plaintiff enhancement award.

The 1-800 Contacts settlement class included “[a]ll natural persons who, while present in California, participated in at least one recorded telephone call with 1-800 Contacts, Inc. between August 15, 2011 and September 10, 2012.”

The court reportedly concluded that the proposed 1-800 Contacts settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate and approved it.  The settlement reportedly provided for 1-800 Contacts to pay $11,700,000 for claims of Class Members who returned valid and timely Claim Forms, for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses of the class action attorneys who represented the class, and a service payment or incentive award to the Plaintiff for representing the class, and the costs of settlement claims administration.

For more information or questions, you can email info@1800ContactsSettlement.com, mail Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 3041 Faribault, MN 55021-2641, call 888-261-9752, fax 855-263-3449 or visit the 1-800 Contacts settlement website at 1800ContactsSettlement.com.

Settlement update: According to the settlement website, distributions were made on January 16.

If you have thoughts on the 1-800 Contacts call recording class action settlement, share your 1-800 Contacts class action comments below.

{ 1 comment }

LinkedIn Customer Files Class Action Lawsuit Complaint Against LinkedIn For Allegedly Sending Endorsement Emails.

LinkedIn Corporation (“LinkedIn” or “Defendant”) has reportedly been named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (styled Perkins et al v. LinkedIn Corporation, Case No. CV 5:2013-cv-04303) alleging, among other things, that LinkedIn appropriated the names, photographs, likenesses, and identities of Plaintiffs to advertise its products and services for a commercial purpose without Plaintiffs’ consent by sending endorsement emails, according to the LinkedIn class action lawsuit complaint.

The proposed LinkedIn class action lawsuit is reportedly brought on behalf of the following putative class members:

“All natural persons in the United States who had an account registered on www.linkedin.com as of May 15, 2013, and had their names, photographs, likenesses, or identities associated with that
account used in an endorsement email sent to third parties by Linkedln.”

The LinkedIn class action lawsuit complaint reportedly asserts legal claims for alleged violation of California’s Common Law Right of Publicity, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, the Stored Communications Act, the Wiretap Act, Cal. Penal Code 502 and the California Invasion Of Privacy Act.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class in the LinkedIn class action law suit reportedly seek, among other things, declaratory relief, disgorgement, restitution, damages, statutory damages, reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees and pre and post judgment interest.

If You Have Thoughts On The LinkedIn Endorsement Email Class Action Lawsuit, Share Your LinkedIn Class Action Lawsuit Comments Below.

{ 1 comment }

Apple Customer Files Class Action Lawsuit Complaint Against Apple For Allegedly Having Requested and Recorded ZIP Codes In Connection With Credit Card Transactions.

Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”) has reportedly been named as a defendant in a privacy class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (styled Adam Christensen, Jeffrey Scolnick, and William Farrell v. Apple, Inc., Case No. CV 1:14-cv-10100) alleging, among other things, that Apple violated Massachusetts law by requiring, as a condition of using a credit card to make a purchase, Plaintiffs’ and the proposed Class members’ personal identification information, i.e., their ZIP codes, according to the Apple class action lawsuit complaint.

The proposed Apple class action lawsuit is reportedly brought on behalf of the following putative class members:

“All persons from whom Apple requested and recorded personal identification information in conjunction with a credit card transaction occurring in Massachusetts.”

The Apple class action lawsuit complaint reportedly asserts legal claims for alleged violations of Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class in the Apple class action law suit reportedly seek, among other things, declaratory relief, statutory damages, doubling or treble damages, injunctive relief, reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees and pre and post judgment interest.

If You Have Thoughts On The Apple Privacy Class Action Lawsuit, Share Your Apple Class Action Lawsuit Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }