Home Blog Page 188

New Equifax FCRA Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit


Another class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.  This lawsuit is in regards to the massive data breach affecting more than 140 million consumers in the United States.  The plaintiff James Andrew Crossett in Case No. 4:17-cv-02434 claims that Equinox violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when hackers obtained an enormous amount of private personal information (PPI) from Equifax customers.  The lawsuit also mentions the “free” identity theft protection that was originally offered by Equifax but prohibited consumers from entering into a class action lawsuit against the company if they took advantage of the free id theft protection service.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires companies to protect consumers privacy at which Equifax failed at according to Crossett v. Equifax Inc.  Plaintiff James Andrew Crossett argues that not only was Equifax negligent with the data breach but they also failed to report the incident to the public in a timely manner (they waited a whooping six weeks to disclose the breach to consumers.  According to the Equifax lawsuit “On September 7, 2017, major news outlets began reporting on the July 2017 Breach,”.  Due to the delay in relaying the data breach consumers were denied the chance to protect themselves from fraudulent use of their personally identifiable information.

The Equifax FCRA Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit states “Given the nature, extent, and sheer volume of sensitive PPI entrusted to it, Equifax was, and is, required to maintain that information in a secure manner and out of the hands of unauthorized individuals and organizations,”.

Mr. Crossett has hired the law firm of Gori Julian & Associates PC to represent him in this case (specifically attorneys D. Todd Mathews, Evan D. Buxner, and Megan T. Arvola).  The case is entitled Crossett v. Equifax Inc. and will be pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Questions about this class action lawsuit can be directed to Gori Julian & Associates PC.

TransUnion Paying $8 Million To Settle FCRA Allegations


TransUnion FCRA Class Action Lawsuit Case Information

  • Patel v. Trans Union LLC, et al.
  • Case No. 3:14-­cv-­00522
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Consumers alleged TransUnion violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by refusing to let them contest criminal and terrorist alerts on reports sent to landlords, according to papers filed in California federal court on 9/15/17. The lead plaintiff in the case is listed as Amit Patel and he claims that the inaccurate report caused him to be turned down for a rental unit (although the landlord renting the property out claims the alert was not the reason he was turned down).  Either way pending settlement approval class member should receive a $400 settlement pay out for the allegedly incorrect terrorist and crime alerts included in the credit check.

According to the class notice more than 10,000 consumers will receive a notice of settlement.  Amit Patel has hired the services of Reed Smith LLP (specifically Karen A. Braje, Michael O’Neil and Albert E. Hartmann).  The judge overseeing the lawsuit is the Magistrate JudgeLaurel Beeler who is based at the San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom C – 15th Floor 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102.

Claim Form

  • Automatic class payments will be made in the amount of $400 pending final approval

Proposed Settlement Amount

  • $8,000,000

Please check back for more updates in regards to the TransUnion FCRA Class Action Lawsuit from ClassActionWallet.com

West Virginia Water Contamination Class Action Settlement


Who is a Class Member

  • Residential households: Any resident of a residence provided tap water service from West Virginia American Water’s Kanawha Valley Water Treatment Plant
  • Businesses: Any business operating at a property location that received tap water from West Virginia American Water’s KVTP on January 9, 2014
  • Hourly workers: Hourly wage earners who can show they lost wages as a result of the Elk River Spill

Preliminary Settlement Approval Granted

  • $151,000,000

Required Documentation (Proof)

According to the terms of the settlement for most class members, there are two payment options:

Simple Claim Form Option providing set amount payments – without the need to submit documentation of actual losses – for Residential Households, Businesses or Governmental Entities


Individual Review Option providing reimbursement of documented losses for Residential Households, Businesses, Governmental Entities, Wage Earners, and additional payment options for Medical Claimants and Pregnancy Claimants.

Online Claim Form

  • class action lawsuits

Important Dates

  • 10/11/17: Claims can be filed both online and by mail
  • 9/22/17: Judge grants preliminary approval

Case Information

  • Good et al. v. American Water Works Co. Inc. et al.,
  • Case number 2:14-cv-01374,
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia

The Good et al. v. American Water Works Co. Inc class action lawsuit revolves around the 2014 coal-processing spill in the Elk River.  Class members contend the spill caused loss of drinkable water, water-loss related expenses, lost hourly wages, lost profits and physical injuries.  U.S. District Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr. initially denied the original settlement proposal on 7/6/17 but granted preliminary approval on 9/22/17 once some issues of the case were renegotiated.

Class Counsel

  • Van Bunch of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC
  • Kevin W. Thompson of Thompson Barney Law Firm
  • Stuart Calwell, Alex McLaughlin and D. Christopher Hedges of The Calwell Practice LC
  • Anthony J. Majestro of Powell & Majestro PLLC
  • Benjamin L. Bailey of Bailey & Glasser LLP
  • Marvin W. Masters of The Masters Law Firm LC

Defense Counsel

  • American Water Works Co. Inc., West Virginia-American Water Co. and American Water Works Service Co. Inc. have hired Thomas J. Hurney Jr., Kent Mayo, and Steven Leifer
  • Eastman Chemical Co has obtained the services of Marc E. Williams and Robert L. Massie (from the law firm of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP) and Deborah Greenspan and Robert Scott (from Blank Rome LLP)

Settlement Website

The Honest Company Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Class Action Settlement


Who is a Class Member?

  • Anyone who purchased Honest brand multi surface cleaner (either the regular version or the concentrate version), Honest brand dish soap (any scent) and Honest brand laundry detergent between the dates of Jan. 17, 2012 through Aug. 2, 2017 is eligible to file a claim

Settlement Amount

  • Like a lot of class action law suits, the total amount each person will get in the Honest brand class law suit depends on how many people file claims, and whether their claim is verified or unverified. Claimants can choose to get cash or to get settlement credits that can be used at Honest.com. Claimants who choose settlement credits will be get 1.5 times the dollar amount

Proof of Purchase

  • Proof of purchase isn’t necessary to file a claim in the Honest class lawsuit, but unverified claimants only get to claim $50 worth of purchases. Claimants with proof get to file up to $200 per person, so it’s important to have your receipts. So if people plan on still using Honest products, it’s probably much more benificial to go with the credit amount, as it’s a good bit more

Claim Form

  • class action lawsuits

Important Dates

  • 11/15/2017: Deadline to file a claim form either online or through the mail, to exclude yourself from the class action suit against Honest (which you would only do if you want to sue on your own) or to object to the suit if you think it shouldn’t be approved
  • 12/15/2017: Date of the final fairness hearing in the Honest brand class action suit. Once the fairness hearing is finished and a judgement given, if approved, settlement checks will begin to be mailed out

SLS MDL Settlement Notes

  • The Honest Company, Inc., SodiumLauryl Sulfate (SLS) Markeing & Sales Practices Litigation
  • Case No. 16-ML-02719 AB (RAOx)

A new class action law suit claims that the Honest company unfairly and deceptively marketed their products like dish soap, multi surface cleaner, and laundry detergent as “sodium lauryl sulfate free” when the products actually had SLS. Honest denies the allegations against them, but has decided to settle out of court simply to avoid the hassle and cost of a court battle.

Anyone interested in joining the class action lawsuit against Honest does not need to do anything other than fill out a claim form – there’s nothing to pay and they do not need their own lawyers. Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP and Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC will represent the class members, and their fee will come out of the class settlement fund. The lawyer’s fees are $417,500, so the class members will be paid the remainder of the settlement pool. The plaintiff representation will have a service award of up to $1,000 each.

Contact Information

  • Mail: Honest SLS MDL Settlement, c/o Dahl Administration, PO Box 3614, Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614
  • Phone: 1-866-791-2071
  • E-mail: info@slssettlement.com

Settlement Website