www.safelinkwireless.com/recertify – Safelink Access to My Account

Safelinkwireless.com/recertify Online

  • Recertify a Safelink Wireless Account online
  • Requires Internet connection and the last 4 digits of your SSN
  • Will take around 5 minutes to complete

Please visit safelinkwireless.com/recertify to start the process.

You will need to provide your name, date of birth, last 4 digits of your SSN, and the zip code in which the Safelink wireless product is being used.


Safelinkwireless.com/recertify Customer Service

  • For Enrollment and Plan Changes Support: 1-800-SafeLink (723-3546)
  • For Technical Support ONLY: 1-800-378-1684
  • Mail: SafeLink Wireless PO Box 220009 Milwaukie, OR 97269-0009

Safelink Hours

Monday to Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. EST or Sunday 8:00 a.m. – 7 p.m. EST.

Who is Safelink Anyways?

SAFELINK WIRELESS® is a program serving eligible households and is provided by TracFone Wireless, Inc. To participate in the SAFELINK WIRELESS® service, certain eligibility requirements must be met, which are set by each State where the service is provided. 

Safelink Brands

NET10 Wireless, StraightTalk, TelCel, Go Smart Mobile, Page Plus, Total Wireless, and Tracfone.

Safelink Recertify Help

Any questions in regards to SafelinkWireless.com/Recertify tech support can be directed to 800-378-1684 from 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 a.m. EST (7 days a week).

Safelink Website

Class Action Wallet Best Bets

Card Offer Sears Card – Upgrade a Sears Mastercard online in just a few minutes (maybe seconds if you’re lucky!)

Macys.com/MyStarRewards – Enroll or log in to a Macy’s My Star Rewards Program

Ulta Beauty Repackaging and Reselling Used Makeup?

The Ulta Beauty Repackaged Products Class Action Lawsuit is Paula M. Ogurkiewicz v. Ulta Beauty Inc., Case No. 2018-­CH-­03006, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  The lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Paula M. Ogurkiewicz.

A former Ulta Beauty employee is claiming that her managers at the retailer would tell her to “clean” and repackage used items to be sold again.  She made the claim via Twitter (below is her original Tweet).

Ulta Beauty Repackaging and Reselling Used Makeup?


“So I was a former employee at ULTA and whenever a customer would return a product, we were told by managers to repackage / reseal the item and put it back on the shelf,” – Former Ulta Employee under Twitter handle fatinamxo

Ulta Beauty Repackaging and Reselling Used Makeup

“They would resell EVERYTHING. ( makeup , hair care , skincare, fragrance ,hair tools, etc. ),” – fatinamxo

Fatinamxo also posted images to her Twitter account, showing what she says is returned merchandise which is then cleaned and put back on the shelves.  Other Twitter accounts have retweeted similar experiences.

Ulta Beauty bills themselves as largest beauty retailer in the United States and the premier beauty destination for cosmetics, fragrance, skin, hair care products and salon services.  Ulta Beauty can also be reached via their customer service hotline at 1-866-983-8582 7 AM – 11 PM CST Monday to Sunday.

The Ulta Beauty corporate office can be reached at 630-410-4800 or by mail at 1000 Remington Boulevard, Suite 120, Bolingbrook, Illinois 60440.

The plaintiff Paula M. Ogurkiewicz will be represented by Louis C. Ludwig, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Gustavo F. Bruckner and Samuel J. Adams of Pomerantz LLP.

Ocean Spray False Ad. Class Action Lawsuit Says Juices Contain Artificial Flavors

A California consumer has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc., alleging the company falsely advertises certain juice beverages as not containing artificial flavors.

Plaintiff Crystal Hilsley originally filed the complaint in September in California Superior Court. The case has since been removed to federal court. Hilsley alleges she purchased Ocean Spray juice products, paying around $4 per bottle over a period of seven years, believing the beverages did not contain artificial flavors.

Specifically, she contends that despite the juices’ front-of-package labels stating the products have “No High Fructose Corn Syrup, Artificial Colors, or Flavors”, the drinks actually contain synthesized ingredients that are categorized as artificial flavors under California law.

“Defendants’ marketing of the products reflects this knowledge of consumers’ preferences for natural products — not by making the products only with natural ingredients, but by concealing from consumers that the products contain artificial flavors,” said the proposed class action lawsuit.

Moreover, Hilsley says that Ocean Spray’s Cran Apple juice includes DL-malic acid derived from petrochemicals, and that its Cran Grape juice contains fumaric acid – an ingredient synthesized from petrochemical feedstocks, which cannot be a natural ingredient.

The Ocean Spray false advertising lawsuit goes on to state that other consumers, like Hilsley, were misled when purchasing Ocean Spray’s drinks, and may have opted not to purchase the beverages had they known they allegedly contain artificial flavors.

“Plaintiff, as a reasonable consumer, is not required to subject consumer food products to laboratory analysis, to scrutinize the back of the label to discover that the product’s front label is false and misleading, or to search the label for information that California law and federal regulations require be displayed prominently on the front,” the complaint states.

Additionally, the lawsuit claims that State and federal law requires companies to properly disclose on their product labeling if the product is artificially flavored. But Ocean Spray allegedly did not do this and instead chose to mislead consumers.

The specific products named in the Ocean Spray false advertising lawsuit include:

  • Ocean Spray Cran Apple
  • Ocean Spray Cran Grape
  • Ocean Spray “100% Apple Juice Drink
  • Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice Cocktail
  • Ocean Spray Wave Apple with White Cranberries
  • Ocean Spray Wave Berry Medley
  • Ocean Spray Cran Cherry
  • Ocean Spray Cran Pineapple
  • Ocean Spray Cran Pomegranate
  • Ocean Spray Diet Cran Pomegranate
  • Ocean Spray Diet Cran Cherry
  • Ocean Spray Cranberry Cherry Flavor 100% Juice

The proposed putative class action seeks to represent all California citizens who purchased the Ocean Spray juice products in California on or after January 1, 2011. The Ocean Spray drinks

Hilsley is requesting, among other things, an award for restitution, injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, and court costs. She is also asking the court to grant an order mandating that Ocean Spray discontinue selling the alleged mislabeled drinks and conduct a corrective advertising campaign.

In June 2012, Ocean Spray was hit with another false advertising class action lawsuit. This case, also filed in California federal court, alleges the labeled certain juices as “no added sugar” and misled consumers into thinking the juices were therefore low in calories, even though they contained fruit sugars. However, the plaintiff in this case asserts that Ocean Spray violated state and false advertising laws because foods labeled as having no sugar must have a disclaimer saying they aren’t low in calories.

Hilsley is represented by Rick L. Shackelford and Daniell K. Newman of Greenberg Traurig LLP.

The Ocean Spray False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Hilsley et al. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02335-GPC-MDD in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

LuLaRoe Clothing Company Pyramid Scheme Class Action Lawsuit

A class action lawsuit has been filed against the popular women’s clothing company LuLaRoe claiming the company is operating a pyramid scheme.  The class action lawsuit states LuLaRoe recruits hopeful employees (many of which who are millennial mothers) to sell its wares from home, but leaves them in “financial ruin.”

The lawsuit states “Consultants were told that they should have at least 10 items in every size in all styles. This was purportedly the ‘magic number’ of inventory.”  Plus the lawsuit explains  “New consultants are aggressively pressured to continue purchasing wholesale inventory even when the inventory they have is not selling, is unlikely to sell, or is piling up in their garage.”

The lawsuit states that LuLaRoe encouraged women to run up high interest debt in order to purchase leggings, skirts and other clothing products.  The lawsuit claims that these woman are left with rooms full of unsold clothing and LuLaRoe is then making most of its money off consultants who are forced to keep an inventory of clothing the company knows they won’t be able to sell.

LuLaRoe calls the suits baseless and inaccurate.

LuLaRoe was founded in 2012 and is known for their brightly colored leggings that can be found all over trendy female Facebook pages.

Any questions in regards to the LuLaRoe Clothing Company Pyramid Scheme Class Action Lawsuit can be directed to:

Joshua H. Watson
865 Howe Ave
Sacramento, CA 95825
Tel: 916-777-7777
Email: jwatson@justice4you.com

Website: pyramidclassaction.com