![](https://www.consumer-action.org/images/Impact-Class-Actions.png)
Class Action by Status
'closed' Listing
Capital One (Overdraft Fees) »
Defendant: Capital One (Overdraft Fees)
Consumers may be eligible for a share of a $31 million settlement if they were charged one or more overdraft fees between July 1, 2002 and August 15, 2010 due to Capital One’s practice of reordering transactions. Class members will automatically receive payment or account credit. Final Hearing is May… Read More »
Capital One (Overdraft Fees) »
Defendant: Capital One (Overdraft Fees)
Consumers may be eligible for a share of a $31 million settlement if they were charged one or more overdraft fees between July 1, 2002 and August 15, 2010 due to Capital One’s practice of reordering transactions. Class members will automatically receive payment or account credit. Final Hearing is May 13, 2015.
×Pure Via (Natural Sweetener) »
Defendant: Pure Via
Consumers who bought Pure Via products between January 1, 2008 and October 6, 2014 may be eligible for up to $30 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of falsely advertising the products as “natural” when some of the ingredients were “highly processed.” Read More »
Pure Via (Natural Sweetener) »
Defendant: Pure Via
Consumers who bought Pure Via products between January 1, 2008 and October 6, 2014 may be eligible for up to $30 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of falsely advertising the products as “natural” when some of the ingredients were “highly processed.”
×Chase (TCPA) »
Defendant: Chase
Consumers who received automated non-emergency credit card or bank account call or text on their cell phones from Chase between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2013 may be eligible for up to $40 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.… Read More »
Chase (TCPA) »
Defendant: Chase
Consumers who received automated non-emergency credit card or bank account call or text on their cell phones from Chase between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2013 may be eligible for up to $40 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
×USPlabs LLC and GNC Corp. (OxyElitePro) »
Defendant: USPlabs LLC and GNC Corp.
Consumers who bought certain USPlabs Products since August 17, 2012 may be eligible for up to $150. The company reached a settlement over allegations of falsely advertising the safety and effectives of the products. Read More »
USPlabs LLC and GNC Corp. (OxyElitePro) »
Defendant: USPlabs LLC and GNC Corp.
Consumers who bought certain USPlabs Products since August 17, 2012 may be eligible for up to $150. The company reached a settlement over allegations of falsely advertising the safety and effectives of the products.
×BMV (Demo) »
Defendant: BMV
The lawsuit alleges BMV failed to disclose that the “new” sales demo or service demo vehicles’ limited warranty period began before consumers purchased the vehicles. Consumers who purchased the “new” sales demo or service demo vehicles between September 28, 2006 and October 6, 2014 may be eligible for cash reimbursement… Read More »
BMV (Demo) »
Defendant: BMV
The lawsuit alleges BMV failed to disclose that the “new” sales demo or service demo vehicles’ limited warranty period began before consumers purchased the vehicles. Consumers who purchased the “new” sales demo or service demo vehicles between September 28, 2006 and October 6, 2014 may be eligible for cash reimbursement for repair expenses and warranty extension.
×Wells Fargo (Flood Insurance) »
Defendant: Wells Fargo
Wells Fargo agreed to a settlement regarding its flood hazard insurance practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo received kickbacks from the insurers for determining the properties as Flood Hazard Determination (“FHD”) and improperly increased the charge of the FHD to the consumers. Homeowners who were charged for… Read More »
Wells Fargo (Flood Insurance) »
Defendant: Wells Fargo
Wells Fargo agreed to a settlement regarding its flood hazard insurance practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo received kickbacks from the insurers for determining the properties as Flood Hazard Determination (“FHD”) and improperly increased the charge of the FHD to the consumers. Homeowners who were charged for FHD between August 30, 2011 and December 31, 2014 may be eligible for $9.50.
×Back Yard Burgers (FACTA) »
Defendant: Back Yard Burgers
Consumers who conducted credit or debit card transactions at Back Yard Burgers in Nebraska and received an electronically-printed receipt that contained the expiration date of the consumer’s credit or debit card between November 3, 2010 and April 15, 2011 may be eligible to receive one coupon for a free soft… Read More »
Back Yard Burgers (FACTA) »
Defendant: Back Yard Burgers
Consumers who conducted credit or debit card transactions at Back Yard Burgers in Nebraska and received an electronically-printed receipt that contained the expiration date of the consumer’s credit or debit card between November 3, 2010 and April 15, 2011 may be eligible to receive one coupon for a free soft drink with purchase of an entrée and possible cash payment. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
×Comenity Bank (TCPA) »
Defendant: Comenity Bank
Consumers who received automatic, non-emergency telephone call on their cell phone or prerecorded call from Comenity Bank without consenting to receive such calls from August 1, 2010 and May 26, 2014 may be eligible for up to $35 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the… Read More »
Comenity Bank (TCPA) »
Defendant: Comenity Bank
Consumers who received automatic, non-emergency telephone call on their cell phone or prerecorded call from Comenity Bank without consenting to receive such calls from August 1, 2010 and May 26, 2014 may be eligible for up to $35 cash. The company reached a settlement over allegations of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Deadline is Jan. 29, 2015
Bank of America (Force-Placed Insurance) »
Defendant: Bank of America
Bank of America agreed to a $228 million settlement regarding its forced-placed hazard insurance practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that Bank of America 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… Read More »
Bank of America (Force-Placed Insurance) »
Defendant: Bank of America
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/07/us-bankofamerica-settlement-idUSBREA361FJ20140407
Bank of America agreed to a $228 million settlement regarding its forced-placed hazard insurance practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that Bank of America 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, 2008 and February 3, 2014 may be eligible for monetary relief.
The case is Cheryl Hall et al vs. Bank of America N.A. et al, Case No 12-cv-22700, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.
Wells Fargo (Force-Placed Insurance) »
Defendant: Wells Fargo
Wells Fargo agreed to a settlement regarding its forced-placed hazard insurance practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo forced consumers to purchase unnecessary expensive hazard insurance (“LPI Policy”). The bank received kickbacks from the insurers for choosing the more-expensive policies for the homeowners. If changes to the LPI… Read More »
Wells Fargo (Force-Placed Insurance) »
Defendant: Wells Fargo
Wells Fargo agreed to a settlement regarding its forced-placed hazard insurance practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo forced consumers to purchase unnecessary expensive hazard insurance (“LPI Policy”). The bank received kickbacks from the insurers for choosing the more-expensive policies for the homeowners. If changes to the LPI Policy occurred on or before March 24, 2012, borrowers may be eligible to receive back 11% of the net premium. If changes to the LPI Policy occurred after March 24, 2012, borrowers may be eligible to receive back 7% of the net premium.
×
MyTechHelp (Debit Card) »
Defendant: MyTechHelp
The lawsuit alleges that MyTechHelp violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act by failing to obtain written authorization to impose recurring charges on consumers’ debit/bank cards. Consumers who had recurring charges imposed between September 13, 2012 and September 13, 2013 and did not receive a refund may be eligible for a… Read More »
MyTechHelp (Debit Card) »
Defendant: MyTechHelp
The lawsuit alleges that MyTechHelp violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act by failing to obtain written authorization to impose recurring charges on consumers’ debit/bank cards. Consumers who had recurring charges imposed between September 13, 2012 and September 13, 2013 and did not receive a refund may be eligible for a pro rata share of the $750,000 settlement.
×Higher One (One Account) »
Defendant: Higher One
Consumers who opened a OneAccount from July 1, 2006 to August 2, 2012 and incurred a fee may be eligible for a share of the $15 million settlement. The company reached a settlement over allegations of failing to adequately disclose all the available disbursement methods and imposing improper fees. Read More »
Higher One (One Account) »
Defendant: Higher One
Consumers who opened a OneAccount from July 1, 2006 to August 2, 2012 and incurred a fee may be eligible for a share of the $15 million settlement. The company reached a settlement over allegations of failing to adequately disclose all the available disbursement methods and imposing improper fees.
×Citibank, MidFirst Bank (Forced Place Flood Insurance) »
Defendant: Citibank, MidFirst Bank
Citigroup agreed to a $110 million settlement regarding its forced-placed hazard insurance practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that Citigroup forced consumers to purchase unnecessary expensive flood and hazard insurance. The bank received kickbacks from the insurers for choosing the more-expensive policies for the homeowners. Borrowers who paid for forced-placed… Read More »
Citibank, MidFirst Bank (Forced Place Flood Insurance) »
Defendant: Citibank, MidFirst Bank
Source: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nyndce/5:2012cv00820/89869/
Citigroup agreed to a $110 million settlement regarding its forced-placed hazard insurance practices on homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that Citigroup forced consumers to purchase unnecessary expensive flood and hazard insurance. The bank received kickbacks from the insurers for choosing the more-expensive policies for the homeowners. Borrowers who paid for forced-placed hazard insurance between May 17, 2006 and April 2, 2014 may be eligible to receive back 8% of the premium.
The case is Gordon Casey, Duane Skinner and Celeste Coonan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs Citigroup Inc, Case No. 12-00820, U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York.
×Pier 1 Imports (ZIP Code) »
Defendant: Pier 1 Imports
Alleges that customers were asked for a ZIP code in violation of their privacy rights between June 19, 2009 and November 6, 2014 at Pier 1 Imports stores in Massachusetts. Class members may be eligible to receive either a $10 voucher (no minimum purchase) or 20% voucher off a merchandise… Read More »
Pier 1 Imports (ZIP Code) »
Defendant: Pier 1 Imports
Alleges that customers were asked for a ZIP code in violation of their privacy rights between June 19, 2009 and November 6, 2014 at Pier 1 Imports stores in Massachusetts. Class members may be eligible to receive either a $10 voucher (no minimum purchase) or 20% voucher off a merchandise purchase up to $100 for use at a Massachusetts Pier 1 Imports store.
×Twin America (Hop-on, Hop-off Bus Tour) »
Defendant: Twin America
Consumers who bought Coach and CitySights NYC “hop-on, hop-off” bus tours between February 1, 2009 and June 16, 2014 may be eligible for up to $20 cash per ticket. The companies reached a settlement over allegations of conspiracy to fix ticket prices, resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers. Read More »
Twin America (Hop-on, Hop-off Bus Tour) »
Defendant: Twin America
Consumers who bought Coach and CitySights NYC “hop-on, hop-off” bus tours between February 1, 2009 and June 16, 2014 may be eligible for up to $20 cash per ticket. The companies reached a settlement over allegations of conspiracy to fix ticket prices, resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers.
×