Claim $25-$99 UFC Mayweather-McGregor Pay-Per-View Class Action Settlement

Who is a Class Member

The UFC Mayweather-McGregor Pay-Per-View Class Action Settlement includes”all consumers who, from a United States address, purchased the online streaming of the August 26, 2017 boxing matches featuring Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Conor McGregor for viewing on UFC.TV, the UFC mobile application, Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV, Microsoft Xbox, Roku, or on LG or Samsung devices.”

If you don’t qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other class action settlements you may be eligible for.


Estimated Award

  • $25 – $99.99

The amount of your payout will depend on what Tier you are qualified for:

Tier 1: If you purchased the Event and attempted to log on to watch the Event, but could not watch any portion of the “Preliminary Bouts”* because of streaming disruption, but you were able to watch the entire “Main Bout” without disruption, your payout will be $25.00.

Tier 2: If you purchased the Event and attempted to log on to watch the Event, but you were unable to watch up to five minutes of the “Main Bout” because of streaming disruption, but were able to watch the remainder of the “Main Bout” without disruption, your payout will be $50.00.

Tier 3: If you purchased the Event and attempted to log on to watch the Event, but you were unable to watch more than five minutes of the “Main Bout” because of streaming disruption, your payout will be $99.99.


Proof of Purchase

  • You will need to provide the email address associated with the account that you used to purchase the Event. Additionally, if you purchased the Event to watch on a Microsoft Xbox, you will need to provide your “Xbox gamertag.” If you did not purchase the Event from UFC and did not link your account to UFC.TV, you will need to provide the IP address you used to stream the Event.

Claim Form

  • class action lawsuits

UFC Mayweather-McGregor Pay-Per-View Settlement Notes

  • Park, et al. v. Zuffa LLC d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, et al.
  • Case No. 2:17-cv-02282-APG-VCF
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada

Plaintiff Cameron Park brought this class action lawsuit against the UFC when he and other consumers were not able to watch the highly publicized UFC Mayweather-McGregor Pay-Per-View event due to technical difficulties and streaming issues. Additionally, four other class action lawsuits were filed against UFC and all were consolidated in Nevada federal court.

The August 26, 2016 UFC Mayweather-McGregor Pay-Per-View fight was an exciting sporting event that millions of sports fans paid to see. However, many Class members who purchased the PPV Fight from via UFC, UFC.com, UFC.tv, the UFC app, or other platforms operated by UFC for $99.95, were not able to actually watch the complete fight because of technical difficulties and insufficient bandwidth and downloading problems.

This left many paying customers frustrated because they did not receive what they paid for, seeing only blank T.V. screens for large portions of the fight.

UFC denies any liability or wrongdoing and say Class members are not entitled to any relief, other than for settlement purposes. Complete details about the case and settlement can be found on the UFC Mayweather-McGregor Pay-Per-View Settlement website.

Class members who wish to exclude themselves or object to the UFC Mayweather-McGregor Pay-Per-View settlement must do so by June 8, 2018. Class members who wish to receive a payout from the settlement must submit their claim form on or before August 20, 2018.


Important Dates

  • 8/20/18: Claim Form Deadline
  • 6/8/18 Objection or Exclusion Deadline
  • 7/20/18: Final Hearing at 9:00 a.m. PT* (class members do not need to attend this hearing in order to receive a slice of the settlement pie).

*Settlement Class Members who wish to speak at the hearing should check www.UFCPPVSettlement.com to confirm that the date or time of the Hearing has not been changed.


Contact Information

  • Mail: UFC PPV Settlement, c/o Angeion Group, 1801 Market Street, Suite 660, Philadelphia, PA 19103
  • Phone: 1-855-786-3978
  • Email: UFCPPV@AdministratorClassAction.com

Class Counsel


Settlement Website

V8 Splash Class Action Lawsuit Says Fruit Juice is Nothing But Sugar Water

Campbell Soup Company is facing allegations that it falsely advertised its V8 Splash juice beverages and healthy and natural, when according to a consumer class action lawsuit, they actually contain “massive amounts of refined sugar.”

Many consumers seek out natural food products and are willing to pay a lot more for these products when compared to food and beverages that are artificially flavored. Plaintiff Hortense Sims is one such consumer and was surprised to learn that the V8 Splash she purchased on multiple occasions since 2014 wasn’t as healthy as she was led to believe.

In order to hold Campbell accountable for allegedly falsely advertising its juice drink, Sims filed the V8 Splash class action lawsuit earlier this month in California federal court. She asserts claims that the juices are misbranded and falsely convey to the consumer that they are healthy, natural beverages brimming with healthful fruit and vegetable juices. This, Sims contends, is not the case at all and that Campbell’s is actually selling artificially-flavored sugar water labeled as if it were fruit juice.

According to the 28-page complaint, V8 Splash drinks, including “Berry Blend” and “Strawberry Kiwi” actually consist of 95 percent water and high fructose corn syrup with minimal amounts of reconstituted carrot juice added for color and texture, and 2 percent or less of all fruits and berries the drinks are named for combined.

For instance, the “Tropical Blend” V8 Splash drink contains 18 grams of sugar per serving – more than Grape Kool-Aid. Additionally, the V8 Splash class action lawsuit says that Campbell’s covers up the near-absence of actual fruit juice in the beverages by adding in artificial flavoring and then concealing this fact from consumers.

“Defendants’ packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying a premium, ‘all natural’ product with natural flavoring ingredients instead of a product that is artificially flavored,” the V8 Splash class action lawsuit states.

Sims goes on to point out that V8 Splash is advertised as a good source of Antioxidant Vitamins A and C. However, the amount of refined sugar in V8 Splash actually depleted the body of antioxidants and blocks vitamin and mineral absorptions and healthful benefits.

Sims is seeking to represent a proposed Class of all California consumers who purchased V8 Splash drinks in California on or after January 1, 2012 for personal use. She is asking the court to award restitution and punitive damages and order Campbell Soup Company to conduct corrective advertising and stop its deceptive advertising of V8 Splash.

Sims and the proposed Class are represented by Ronald A. Marron and Michael T. Houchin of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

The V8 Splash False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Hortense Sims v. Campbell Soup Company, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00668, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Defective Dryer Lint Screen Covers Prompt Kenmore Class Action Lawsuit

Sears is facing a nationwide consumer class action lawsuit alleging its Kenmore dryers have defective dryer lint screen covers that can catch and damage clothing.

Plaintiffs Michael Smith and Lisa Alberton are suing Sears Holdings Corp., hoping to hold the company accountable for its role in failing to disclose to consumers about the alleged defective Kenmore dryer lint screen covers.

According to the Kenmore dryer class action lawsuit, the defective dryer lint screen covers protrude into the machines so that they catch items of clothing and damage them. Additionally, the protrusion of the Kenmore dryer lint screen covers allows excess lint to build up in the dryer – a leading cause of dryer fires. The issue reportedly occurs in both Kenmore gas and electric dryers.

So why is Sears Holdings Corp. responsible? Well, Smith and Alberton contend that Sears, who sells the affected dryers under the Sears and Kenmore brand name, ignored the issue and refused to repair the defective Kenmore dryer lint screen covers, despite being under warranty. This results in consumers being forced to spend money on repairs to both their clothing and to the Kenmore dryers themselves.

In Smith’s case, he says he contacted Sears about the issues with his Kenmore dryer and the company sent him a “replacement” dryer lint screen cover. However, this “replacement” lint screen cover was the same one he already had, so he sent it back for a full refund. When Smith contacted Sears again to tell them they sent him the same defective lint screen cover, Sears reportedly told him the only to fix the problem with the Kenmore dryer tearing his clothing was to have a professional repairman service the dryer.

Sears sent a repairman, who told Smith that the issue with damaged clothing was due to the protruding dryer lint screen cover that did not sit properly in his dryer. The Sears repairmen reportedly also told Smith this was a common problem with Kenmore dryers. Still, Smith forked out $79 to have the dryer serviced. Unfortunately, it didn’t work as the problem recurred shortly after.

Alberton details a similar situation with the defective Kenmore dryer lint screen covers tearing her clothing and was told by a Sears repairman that it would cost $400 to fix her dryer. She refused the repair, but still had to pay $90 out-of-pocket for the service call.

Smith and Alberton aren’t the only ones who have had to pay out-of-pocket for the damage allegedly caused by the defective Kenmore dryer lint screen covers. Countless consumer complaints are posted on the Internet about the dryer’s defect and damage it does to clothing, with many detailing how Sears won’t do anything to remediate the defect, aside from sending them a “replacement” dryer lint screen cover.

Both plaintiffs are seeking to represent a proposed national Class of consumers who purchased one or more Sears or Sears’ Kenmore-brand dryers, as well two separate state subclasses: Pennsylvania and Illinois.

Smith and Alberton are represented by Daniel O. Herrera and Brian P. O’Connell of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP.

The Defective Kenmore Dryer Lint Screen Covers Class Action Lawsuit is Michael Smith and Lisa Alberton, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Sears Holdings Corp., Case No. 1:18-cv-01142, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Best Buy Class Action Lawsuit Says “0% Interest” Promotion is Bogus

Best Buy is facing a nationwide consumer class action lawsuit over allegations that its “0% interest” or “no interest” promotions are in fact, completely bogus.

Plaintiff Ruth Stinson filed the Best Buy class action lawsuit earlier this month in Minnesota federal court, claiming that she and other Best Buy shoppers were tricked into applying for and accepting financing for big ticket items like appliances and electronics that is “confusing, misleading, and deceptive.”

Stinson says she fell victim to Best Buy’s 0% financing scheme when she was shopping at a Best Buy store in Michigan in October 2015. The Best Buy salesperson informed her that if she qualified, she would receive 18 months with no interest on her purchase. Stinson believed this was true.

The Best Buy class action lawsuit goes on to note that the salesperson never informed Stinson that if she failed to pay off the entire balance of the account before the end of the 18-month promotional period she would be required to pay interest on the entire purchase price retroactive to the initial date of purchase.

According to the 27-page complaint, this is a practice Best Buy routinely practices – encouraging consumers to make expensive purchases with promises of “0% interest” or “no interest, but yet intentionally failing to give customers the entire truth about what they are signing up for.

If consumers fail to pay off their entire purchase balance by the end of the promotional period, they are retroactively charged interest on the entire purchase price from the date of the initial purchase. Even if a consumer fall just a few dollars short of full repayment, they are charged interest as if they had never made any payments to Best Buy.

“Best Buy exploits the foregoing lack of transparency and consumers’ corresponding lack of understanding by advertising and marketing its promotions using the phrases “0% interest” or “no interest” to mislead, confuse, and deceive consumers into believing they are signing up for a true “0% interest” offer, which they are not,” the Best Buy class action lawsuit states.

And that is exactly what happened to Stinson. Despite making timely payments and paying off a significant portion of the initial $947.82 purchase price during the 18-month promotional period, she was unable to pay off the entire balance, and was hit with $309.54 dollars in retroactive interest when it expired. Had she known that she would be charged retroactive interest, she would not have agreed to the financing, the Best Buy class action lawsuit contends.

Stinson is seeking to represent a nationwide Class and a Michigan subclass of consumers who made purchases at Best Buy on store-issued credit and were later charged retroactive, lump-sum interest on the full purchase amount. She is requesting the Court award restitution, punitive, and exemplary damages, as well as an injunction requiring Best Buy to adequately disclose facts regarding the true nature of its “0% interest” or “no interest” promotions.

Stinson and the proposed class are represented by Melissa S. Weiner and Christopher J. Moreland of Halunen Law.

The Best Buy Class Action Lawsuit is Ruth Stinson, et al., v. Best Buy Co., Inc., Case No. 0:18-cv-00295, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.