![](https://www.consumer-action.org/images/Impact-Class-Actions.png)
Class Action by Status
'closed' Listing
PHH Mortgage Corporation (Forced-Placed Insurance) »
Defendant: PHH Mortgage Corporation
PHH Mortgage Corporation agreed to a settlement regarding its lender-placed insurance (“LPI”) practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that PHH forced borrowers to purchase unnecessary expensive hazard, flood, or wind-only insurance. Borrowers who paid for residential LPI between January 1, 2006 and July 31, 2015 may be eligible to receive… Read More »
PHH Mortgage Corporation (Forced-Placed Insurance) »
Defendant: PHH Mortgage Corporation
PHH Mortgage Corporation agreed to a settlement regarding its lender-placed insurance (“LPI”) practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that PHH forced borrowers to purchase unnecessary expensive hazard, flood, or wind-only insurance. Borrowers who paid for residential LPI between January 1, 2006 and July 31, 2015 may be eligible to receive back 6% or 11.5% of the premium.
×Synchrony Bank (Telephone Recording) »
Defendant: Synchrony Bank
California residents who received a call from of Synchrony Bank regarding a debt between March 27, 2012 and June 1, 2017 that was monitored or recorded and did not have a Synchrony Bank account at the time of the call may be eligible for a share of the $999,999 settlement.… Read More »
Synchrony Bank (Telephone Recording) »
Defendant: Synchrony Bank
California residents who received a call from of Synchrony Bank regarding a debt between March 27, 2012 and June 1, 2017 that was monitored or recorded and did not have a Synchrony Bank account at the time of the call may be eligible for a share of the $999,999 settlement. The company reached a settlement over allegations of recording telephone calls without notice or consent of California residents.
×The Honest Company (Marketing) »
Defendant: The Honest Company
Consumers who bought certain Honest products between January 17, 2012 and July 10, 2017 may be eligible for $2.50 per product, with a maximum of ten products (and no maximum with proof of purchase). The company reached a settlement over allegations of deceptive advertising and labeling. Read More »
The Honest Company (Marketing) »
Defendant: The Honest Company
Consumers who bought certain Honest products between January 17, 2012 and July 10, 2017 may be eligible for $2.50 per product, with a maximum of ten products (and no maximum with proof of purchase). The company reached a settlement over allegations of deceptive advertising and labeling.
×Similasan (Homeopathic) »
Defendant: (Homeopathic)
Consumers who bought certain Similasan Homeopathic products between February 10, 2008 and April 12, 2017 may be eligible for a full refund based on their purchase receipts or up to $5 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of deceptive marketing of its homeopathic products. Court granted final approval… Read More »
Similasan (Homeopathic) »
Defendant: (Homeopathic)
Consumers who bought certain Similasan Homeopathic products between February 10, 2008 and April 12, 2017 may be eligible for a full refund based on their purchase receipts or up to $5 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of deceptive marketing of its homeopathic products.
Court granted final approval on Sep. 17, 2017.
×bebe (Text Messages) »
Defendant: bebe
Consumers who provided their cell phone at bebe’s cash register from October 16, 2013 and January 21, 2014 and received text message from bebe before January 21, 2014 may be eligible for $20 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Read More »
bebe (Text Messages) »
Defendant: bebe
Consumers who provided their cell phone at bebe’s cash register from October 16, 2013 and January 21, 2014 and received text message from bebe before January 21, 2014 may be eligible for $20 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
×Rust-Oleum (2X Spray Paint) »
Defendant: Rust-Oleum
Consumers who bought certain Rust-Oleum 2X spray paint products between December 12, 2011 and May 30, 2017 may be eligible for up to $20 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of misrepresenting the paint coverage. Read More »
Rust-Oleum (2X Spray Paint) »
Defendant: Rust-Oleum
Consumers who bought certain Rust-Oleum 2X spray paint products between December 12, 2011 and May 30, 2017 may be eligible for up to $20 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of misrepresenting the paint coverage.
×Yapstone (ID Theft) »
Defendant: Yapstone
Consumers whose personal identification information were exposed through unsecured websites when using Yapstone between July 15, 2014 and August 5, 2015 may be eligible for twelve months of Experian’s ProtectMyID® identity monitoring services and identity theft insurance. Read More »
Yapstone (ID Theft) »
Defendant: Yapstone
Consumers whose personal identification information were exposed through unsecured websites when using Yapstone between July 15, 2014 and August 5, 2015 may be eligible for twelve months of Experian’s ProtectMyID® identity monitoring services and identity theft insurance.
×FabFitFun (Expiration Date) »
Defendant: FabFitFun
Alleges that expiration dates on gift cards through FabFitFun or its vendors were earlier than allowed under state and federal laws. Consumers who received a gift card through FabFunFit or its vendors with a expiration date earlier than allowed by law between January 1, 2013 and April 11, 2017 may… Read More »
FabFitFun (Expiration Date) »
Defendant: FabFitFun
Alleges that expiration dates on gift cards through FabFitFun or its vendors were earlier than allowed under state and federal laws. Consumers who received a gift card through FabFunFit or its vendors with a expiration date earlier than allowed by law between January 1, 2013 and April 11, 2017 may be eligible for a replacement gift card.
×Microsoft (FACTA) »
Defendant: Microsoft
Consumers who conducted credit or debit card transactions and received a printed receipt that contained more than five digits of the consumer’s credit or debit card at a Microsoft retail store between November 20, 2013 and February 28, 2017 may be eligible for up to $100 cash. The company reached… Read More »
Microsoft (FACTA) »
Defendant: Microsoft
Source: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Guarisma_v_Microsoft_Corporation_Docket_No_115cv24326_SD_Fla_Nov_
Consumers who conducted credit or debit card transactions and received a printed receipt that contained more than five digits of the consumer’s credit or debit card at a Microsoft retail store between November 20, 2013 and February 28, 2017 may be eligible for up to $100 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.
×Porsche (Dashboard) »
Defendant: Porsche
The lawsuit alleges that 2007-2016 model years Porsche with certain colored dashboards are defectively designed to intensify the glare or reflection on the windshield. Consumers who purchased or leased these models may be eligible for out of pocket expenses made to reduce the windshield reflection/glare. Read More »
Porsche (Dashboard) »
Defendant: Porsche
The lawsuit alleges that 2007-2016 model years Porsche with certain colored dashboards are defectively designed to intensify the glare or reflection on the windshield. Consumers who purchased or leased these models may be eligible for out of pocket expenses made to reduce the windshield reflection/glare.
×Wells Fargo (Retail Installment TCPA) »
Defendant: Wells Fargo
Consumers who received automated or prerecorded call or text on their cell phones from Wells Fargo regarding overdrafts on a Wells Fargo account between April 1, 2011 and March 30, 2016 may be eligible for a pro rata share of the $15.7 million settlement. The company reached a settlement over… Read More »
Wells Fargo (Retail Installment TCPA) »
Defendant: Wells Fargo
Consumers who received automated or prerecorded call or text on their cell phones from Wells Fargo regarding overdrafts on a Wells Fargo account between April 1, 2011 and March 30, 2016 may be eligible for a pro rata share of the $15.7 million settlement. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
×Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc. (TCPA) »
Defendant: Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc.
Consumers who received automated calls or unsolicited, automated text messages from Wells Fargo regarding automobile retail installment sale contracts between April 1, 2011 March 30, 2016 may be eligible for a pro rata share of the $14.8 million settlement. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the… Read More »
Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc. (TCPA) »
Defendant: Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc.
Consumers who received automated calls or unsolicited, automated text messages from Wells Fargo regarding automobile retail installment sale contracts between April 1, 2011 March 30, 2016 may be eligible for a pro rata share of the $14.8 million settlement. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
×Hain Celestial (JASON Natural Products) »
Defendant: Hain Celestial; JASON Natural Products
Consumers who bought certain JASON products from August 17, 2011 and June 2, 2017 may be eligible for $8 per product, with a maximum of five products, based on valid receipt submission. Class members without a valid receipt submission may be eligible for $2 per product, with a maximum of… Read More »
Hain Celestial (JASON Natural Products) »
Defendant: Hain Celestial; JASON Natural Products
Consumers who bought certain JASON products from August 17, 2011 and June 2, 2017 may be eligible for $8 per product, with a maximum of five products, based on valid receipt submission. Class members without a valid receipt submission may be eligible for $2 per product, with a maximum of five products. The company reached a settlement over allegations of falsely advertising that the products do not contain a chemical sodium lauryl sulfate.
×SoulCycle (Gift Certificates) »
Defendant: SoulCycle
Consumers who bought SoulCycle Class between August 25, 2014 and February 10, 2017 that contained an expiration date and was unable to redeem the voucher due to the expiration date may be eligible for a new Class or $25 per expired class up to a total of $50 cash. California… Read More »
SoulCycle (Gift Certificates) »
Defendant: SoulCycle
Consumers who bought SoulCycle Class between August 25, 2014 and February 10, 2017 that contained an expiration date and was unable to redeem the voucher due to the expiration date may be eligible for a new Class or $25 per expired class up to a total of $50 cash. California consumers who bought SoulCycle Class between February 1, 2012 and February 10, 2017 that contained an expiration date and was unable to redeem the voucher due to the expiration date may be eligible for a new Class or $25 per expired class up to a total of $50 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violation of gift card and gift certificate regulations.
×Dynamic Pet Products (Real Ham Bone For Dogs) »
Defendant: Dynamic Pet Products, LLC; Frick’s Meat Products, Inc.
Consumers who bought Real Ham Bone For Dogs between January 1, 2011 and May 12, 2017 may be eligible for $3 per bone, with a maximum of ten products. Consumers whose pets were injured or died from use of Real Ham Bone for Dogs between January 1, 2011 and May… Read More »
Dynamic Pet Products (Real Ham Bone For Dogs) »
Defendant: Dynamic Pet Products, LLC; Frick’s Meat Products, Inc.
Consumers who bought Real Ham Bone For Dogs between January 1, 2011 and May 12, 2017 may be eligible for $3 per bone, with a maximum of ten products. Consumers whose pets were injured or died from use of Real Ham Bone for Dogs between January 1, 2011 and May 12, 2017 may be eligible for up to $2,500 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of falsely advertising the bones as safe when the bones would splinter when chewed by dogs.
The case is Taylor, et al. v. Dynamic Pet Products, LLC, Case No. 1616-CV11531, in Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri at Independence.
×