If you live in one of ten Southern California counties and purchased gas between February 20, 2015 and November 10, 2015 (or live out of state or on behalf of a business between February 18, 2015 and May 31, 2017) you might be eligible for a class action rebate. The counties are: Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and/or Imperial.
It was alleged that gas trading firms participated in market manipulation and price gouging. They admit no wrong doing but have agreed to a $50 million settlement. You must submit a claim by January 10, 2025. The official website is: https://calgaslitigation.com/.
As always with these settlements you might as well participate unless you plan to file your own legal action.
A Settlement has been proposed in class action litigation against Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”). This class action alleges that Oracle improperly captured, compiled, and sold individuals’ online and offline data to third parties without obtaining their consent. Oracle denies all the allegations made in the lawsuit and any wrongdoing and maintains that its practices were lawful and disclosed to individuals.
How do I get a payment? You must submit a valid Claim Form by October 17, 2024. Claim forms may be submitted online at www.KatzPrivacySettlement.com or printed from the website and mailed to the address on the Claim Form. Claim Forms are also available by calling 1-888-255-4036 or emailing [email protected]. You are not required to submit a claim, but if you are in the Settlement Class and do not submit a claim, you will lose your right to claim compensation in connection with the Settlement.
Our Verdict
Seems you’d have gotten an email if you were affected and you need the email in order to file. The emails are being sent to spam so check that and file if you got one. Not sure what the expected payout is.
Certain current and former financial aid recipients brought a proposed class action lawsuit in January 2022 against the numerous universities alleging that the universities conspired to limit the amount of financial aid received and thereby to artificially inflate prices students paid to attend.
Brown
Caltech
Columbia
Cornell
Dartmouth
Duke
Emory
Georgetown
JHU
MIT
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Rice
UChicago
UPenn
Vanderbilt
Yale
Settlements totaling $284 million from ten out of the seventeen defendants in the case will provide payments to students who received need-based financial aid to cover costs to attend those schools.
Who Is Eligible
In the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order on February 28, 2024, the Court defined the Settlement Class as follows:
Those who have during were enrolled in one or more of Defendants’ full-time undergraduate programs,
and received at least some need-based financial aid from one or more Defendants,
and whose tuition, fees, room, or board to attend one or more of Defendants’ full-time undergraduate programs was not fully covered by the combination of any types of financial aid or merit aid (not including loans) in any undergraduate year.
The Class Period is defined as follows:
For Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, MIT, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Penn, Rice, Vanderbilt, Yale—from Fall Term 2003 through February 28, 2024.
For Brown, Dartmouth, Emory—from Fall Term 2004 through February 28, 2024.
For CalTech— Fall Term 2019 through February 28, 2024.
For Johns Hopkins— Fall Term 2021 through February 28, 2024.
How Much
How much will depend on how many years you attended and other factors. I’m not seeing a number yet on the class website, but apparently it’s been estimated to be at least $2,000 per affected person.
Our Verdict
Nice big payout potential here for those eligible. We’ll update when the claim form becomes available.
Costco was ordered to pay $2 million to customers who purchased Kirkland Signature Moist Flushable Wipes from the store between July 1, 2011, and May 31, 2017. The lawsuit says that these ‘flushable’ wipes caused “damage to pipes, septic systems, sewage lines and other plumbing.”
Who Is Eligible?
To make a claim, if you do not currently maintain a Costco membership, you must fill out the claim form available on the settlement website. You can print the claim form and mail it to the Claims Administrator at Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 301134, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134, or you can submit the claim form online. Claim forms must be submitted online or received, not just postmarked, by August 9, 2024.
If you currently maintain a Costco membership, you do not need to submit a claim. Costco will identify Settlement Class Members and the number of Product units purchased and issue the appropriate check to the mailing address on file.
How Much?
Class members can receive $1.30 per purchased product. Class members will receive a minimum payment of $7.50 and can claim up to 43 products for a maximum payment of $55.90. No proof of purchase is required.
Important Dates
August 9, 2024 – final day to submit a claim
July 1, 2011 through May 31, 2017 – dates of the false advertisement claim
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on August 30, 2024
Plaintiffs alleged Walmart sold-by-weight meat, poultry, pork, and seafood products (referred to as “Weighted Goods”) and certain organic oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and navel oranges sold in bulk in mesh or plastic bags (referred to as “Bagged Citrus”) paid more than the lowest in-store advertised price for those products. Walmart has denied any wrong doing but agreed to a settlement.
Who is Eligible
You are a member of the Settlement Class if you purchased Weighted Goods and/or Bagged Citrus in-person at a Walmart retail store, supercenter, or neighborhood market in the United States or Puerto Rico October 19, 2018 through and including January 19, 2024.
How Much
Up to $25 without proof of purchase
Up to $500 with proof of purchase
Total settlement pool is $25 million
Important Dates
You must submit a completed Claim Form no later than JUNE 5, 2024
The final approval hearing on this is scheduled for ??
Our Verdict
You should be notified if you have your purchases link, otherwise you’ll need to manually claim. Given the settlement pool is only $25 million I’d be surprised if people get anything like $25 or $500 but always worth doing these as sometimes you get a nice surprise.
RealPage software is used to set rental prices on 4.5 million housing units in the U.S. A series of lawsuits allege that a group of landlords are sharing sensitive data with RealPage, which then artificially inflates rents. The complaints surface as housing supply in the U.S. lags demand. Some of the defendant landlords report high occupancy within their buildings, alongside strong jobs growth in their operating regions and slow home construction.
Verizon customers claimed in a class action lawsuit that Verizon has charged its post-paid individual consumer wireless service account holders a monthly “Administrative Charge” or “Telco Recovery Charge” that was unfair and not adequately disclosed. Verizon has denied that the lawsuit has any merit. The customers and Verizon have reached a proposed settlement to resolve the lawsuit on a class action basis, as described below.
If the settlement is approved and becomes final, Verizon will pay $100 million into a Settlement Fund. If you file a claim by the deadline and are eligible for a payment, your payment may be up to $100 for your account. The final amount may be lower depending on how long you were a Verizon subscriber and how many Settlement Class Members file valid claims.
Also as part of this settlement, Verizon will amend its Customer Agreement to include revised Administrative Charge disclosures.
Important Dates
Must file a claim by April 15, 2024
Our Verdict
There is a chance at up to $100 on this one. I always assume it’ll end up being much less, but we have seen a few times when readers ended up getting paid handsomely on similar deals, presumably due to low volume of claims.
Verizon mobile phone customers could share a proposed $100 million class action settlement over monthly fees that people suing the communications company claim were unfairly charged and improperly disclosed. But those who want to claim their share of that money need to act by April 15.
Continue reading this article with a Barron’s subscription.
Ever since the collapse of crypto currencies last year, the lawsuits have been flying.
But a series of class-action suits targeting celebrity endorsers of crypto exchanges like FTX and Binance have been piling up in federal court in Miami, all filed by the same group of south Florida lawyers.
The latest suit names global soccer superstar Cristiano Ronaldo for allegedly promoting “the mass solicitation of investments in unregistered securities” sold by Binance, the crypto exchange that was hit with a $4 billion fine last week after pleading guilty to violating the bank secrecy act.
The suit was filed in federal court in the southern district of Florida this week and centered around Ronaldo’s role in a global marketing campaign launched in 2022 for a series of Binance NFTs — or non-fungible tokens, a form of blockchain-backed art works that were, for a brief time, wildly popular.
A representative for Ronaldo didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The filing against Ronaldo on Monday came alongside similar class action suits naming Major League Baseball, Formula 1 racing, Mercedes Benz and the advertising giants Dentsu and Wasserman, who created much of FTX’s global promotion campaign.
Messages left with representatives for MLB, Formula 1, Mercedes Benz, Dentsu and Wasserman weren’t immediately returned.
Those suits are the latest in a series of similar class action suits starting last year against celebrity endorsers of failed crypto exchanges such as Voyager and FTX, in which customers lost billions of dollars in deposits.
Over the past 18 months, a group of south Florida lawyers led by Adam Moskowitz have brought the suits on behalf of investors who lost money in last year’s crypto collapse, against paid celebrity endorsers including Shaquille O’Neal, Mark Cuban, Tom Brady, Gisele Bundchen, Shohei Ohtani, Larry David, Steph Curry and Naomi Osaka.
“All of these celebrities were paid hundreds of millions of dollars taken directly from customer deposits,” Moskowitz said in a statement. “Some of the most famous and wealthiest groups in the world may now be held responsible for the dramatic $20 billion dollar crypto collapse and biggest financial scandals in U.S. history.”
Moskowitz, who has been joined in the suits by lawyers with the firms Mark Migdal & Hayden and Boies Schiller and Flexner, headed by famed litigator David Boies, is seeking at least $5 billion in damages from those who helped promote the crypto exchanges.
The cases from last year are ongoing and each of the celebrities named have been fighting the suits in court.
Moskowitz, who specializes in class-action lawsuits, says issues revolving around crypto first got his attention more than two years ago, before the entire market crashed, when he came to believe that the special tokens each exchange was minting amounted to an unregistered security.
He first filed a lawsuit against Voyager early last year, before the exchange collapsed and the Securities and Exchange Commission began filing suits against many in the industry accusing them of dealing in unregistered securities.
“Right then what we were doing started to gain traction,” he said.
A series of favorable court rulings have allowed his cases to gain steam, he said, and has allowed to him to take the lead in such actions.
Going back decades, if you wanted to buy or sell a stock on the open market, you had to pay a 2% commission to buy and a 2% commission to sell. Then the advent of discount brokerage, led by Charles Schwab Corp. SCHW, +1.64%,
made lower commissions available until eventually, with improved technology and efficiency, the entire industry changed to enable the average investor to avoid commissions completely.
But the internet hasn’t done much to reduce the cost of selling a home in the U.S. Sellers typically pay a 6% commission to a real-estate agent to list and sell a home, with the seller’s agent splitting that commission with the buyer’s agent. But all of that may change because of a verdict this week in a class-action lawsuit in federal court against the National Association of Realtors.
Aarthi Swaminathan covers the case, what may happen next and the implications for home sellers and buyers:
Real-estate advice from the Moneyist
MarketWatch illustration
Quentin Fottrell — the Moneyist — works with three readers to answer tricky real-estate questions:
Jon Gray, the president of Blackstone Group, spoke with MarketWatch Editor in Chief Mark DeCambre and said he expected the Fed to succeed in bringing down inflation without pushing the U.S. economy into a deep recession.
The U.S. Treasury yield curve has been inverted for nearly a year.
FactSet
Normally, longer-term bonds have higher yields than those with short maturities. But the yield curve has been inverted for nearly a year, with 3-month U.S. Treasury bills BX:TMUBMUSD03M
having higher yields than 10-year Treasury notes BX:TMUBMUSD10Y.
There has been elevated demand for long-term bonds, as investors have anticipated a recession and a reversal in Federal Reserve interest-rate policy. When interest rates decline, bond prices rise and vice versa.
As you can see on the chart above, the yield curve was narrowing until mid-October. Yields on 10-year Treasury notes were close to 5% on Oct. 19, but they have been falling the past several days as the three-month yield has remained close to 5.5%.
In the Bond Report, Vivien Lou Chen summarizes the action as investors react to the Federal Reserve’s decision not to change its federal-funds-rate target range this week and to other economic news.
For income-seekers looking to avoid income taxes, here’s a deep dive into municipal bonds, with taxable-equivalent yields and a deeper look at those within four high-tax states.
Ford’s good news — in the bond market
Ford Motor Co.’s debt rating has been lifted by S&P to investment-grade.
By now you have probably heard the term “Magnificent Seven” used to describe stocks of the tremendous tech-oriented companies that have led this year’s rally for the S&P 500 SPX
: Apple Inc. AAPL, -0.52%,
Microsoft Corp. MSFT, +1.29%,
Amazon.com Inc. AMZN, +0.38%,
Nvidia Corp. NVDA, +3.45%,
Alphabet Inc. GOOGL, +1.26%
GOOG, +1.39%,
Meta Platforms Inc. META, +1.20%
and Tesla Inc. TSLA, +0.66%.
With Tesla’s recent decline, that company is now the ninth-largest holding in the portfolio of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust SPY,
which tracks the benchmark index. Here are the top 10 companies held by SPY (11 stocks, including two common-share classes for Alphabet), with total returns through Thursday:
Five of these stocks (including the two Alphabet share classes) are still down from the end of 2021. SPY itself has returned 14% this year, following an 18% decline in 2022. It is still down 7% from the end of 2021.
After the market close on Wednesday, PayPal Holdings Inc. PYPL, +1.89%
announced quarterly results that came in ahead of analysts’ expectations, and the stock soared 7% on Thursday even though the company lowered its target for improving its operating margin.
Consumers drive mixed reactions to earnings results
Apple Inc. reported mixed quarterly results.
Mario Tama/Getty Images
Here’s more of the latest corporate financial results and reactions. First the good news:
And now the news that may not be so good:
Harsh verdict for SBF
FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried.
AP
It might seem that some legal battles never end, but it took only a year from the collapse of FTX for the cryptocurrency exchange’s founder, Sam Bankman-Fried, to be convicted on all seven federal fraud and money-laundering charges brought against him. The charges were connected to the disappearance of $8 billion from FTX customer accounts.
Here’s more reaction and coverage of the virtual-currency industry:
Want more from MarketWatch? Sign up for this and other newsletters to get the latest news and advice on personal finance and investing.
Deutsche Bank AG will pay $75 million to settle a proposed class-action lawsuit claiming it aided Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday night.
The suit was filed by lawyers on behalf of an anonymous victim and others who accused the financier, who died by suicide in federal lockup in 2019, of sexual abuse and trafficking. The suit claimed Deutsche Bank DB, +1.92%
ignored red flags and did business with Epstein for five years despite knowing he was using the money from his accounts to further his sex trafficking.
Wells Fargo & Co. has agreed to pay $1 billion to settle a shareholders lawsuit related to its 2016 fake-accounts scandal, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Citing court documents, the Journal reported Monday night that Wells Fargo WFC, +3.41%
settled a class-action suit brought by shareholders who claimed bank executives overstated the bank’s progress at cleaning up its risk-management systems and governance in the wake of the scandal.
In a statement to the Journal, Wells Fargo said: “While we disagree with the allegations in this case, we are pleased to have resolved this matter.”
The settlement, which still needs to be approved by a judge, likely would be the 17th-largest ever for a shareholders’ class action, the Journal reported.
Wells Fargo has paid billions in fines and settlements related to the scandal. In December, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ordered Wells Fargo to pay $3.7 billion as a result of alleged widespread mismanagement, and in March, a former Wells Fargo executive accused of overseeing the fake-account scheme pleaded guilty to criminal charges, agreeing to a 16-month prison term and a $17 million fine.
Wells Fargo shares are down 6% year to date and are off 8% over the past 12 months, compared to the S&P 500’s SPX, +0.30%
8% gain in 2023 and 3% rise over the past year.
In September 2010, three former Goldman Sachs employees filed a lawsuit against the bank, citing gender discrimination against female associates through salary, performance reviews, and promotions. Eight years later, it was granted class-action status, and a trial date was set for June 7, 2023 — nearly 13 years after filing the original complaint.
Now, the plaintiffs’ longstanding fight is over.
On Monday, a joint statement between the plaintiffs and the bank announced that Goldman Sachs settled the lawsuit for $215 million. In addition to the settlement, Goldman Sachs agreed to change some of its promotion practices and hire independent experts to conduct pay-equity studies and analysis on how the bank carries out performance reviews.
“As one of the original plaintiffs, I have been proud to support this case without hesitation over the last nearly thirteen years and believe this settlement will help the women I had in mind when I filed the case,” said Shanna Orlich, in a statement.
Since the original filing, the lawsuit grew to approximately 2,800 qualifying class members, and the settlement payout will be divided by a third-party administrator who will use an objective formula.
Qualifying class members are any women who held a position in a revenue-producing role in the bank’s investment banking, investment management, or securities divisions anytime between July 7, 2002, and March 28, 2023, or elsewhere in the U.S. at any time from September 10, 2004, through March 28, 2023.
“Goldman Sachs is proud of its long record of promoting and advancing women and remains committed to ensuring a diverse and inclusive workplace for all our people,” said Goldman Sachs’ global head of human capital management, Jacqueline Arthur, in a statement. “After more than a decade of vigorous litigation, both parties have agreed to resolve this matter.”
A hearing date for preliminary settlement approval has yet to be announced.
If you used Facebook between May 2007 and December 2022, the social-media giant may owe you some money.
A California judge preliminarily approved a $725 million settlement between Facebook parent Meta Platforms META, -1.01%
and users who say the company allowed their data to be viewed or shared by third parties, notably Cambridge Analytica, without their consent.
The judge’s approval was a precursor to the final approval hearing, which will take place in September, but people can begin submitting claims now to potentially get a cash payment.
Who does the Facebook settlement apply to?
The $725 million settlement applies to anybody who was a Facebook user in the U.S. between May 24, 2007 and Dec. 22, 2022. The class-action form simply states that people who were Facebook users during that period are eligible. It does not mention any required level of activity on the account.
It’s unclear if someone with multiple Facebook accounts would be entitled to more money than a person with a single account. To find out if you are included in the settlement group, you can email info@FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com
When is the deadline to submit a claim?
The claim form must be submitted no later than Aug. 25, 2023.
The form can be completed online or downloaded and mailed to the settlement administrator at the following address: Facebook Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, c/o Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch St., Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
How much money will you get?
As is typical with class-action lawsuits, the amount an individual will receive is dependent on a variety of factors.
The settlement form says the payment will vary based on how many people submit claims. Additionally, administrative costs and attorneys’ fees will be deducted from the settlement fund prior to its release.
“Settlement payments will be distributed as soon as possible if the Court grants Final Approval of the Settlement and after any appeals are resolved,” the claim website notes.
How many people does this affect?
Because Facebook has so many users and because of the 16-year time frame for this settlement, there are millions of people who could submit a claim.
According to data compiled by Statista, total Facebook users in the U.S. numbered roughly 240 million in 2022.
What has Meta said about the lawsuit?
In December 2022, Meta agreed in principle to pay the settlement. At the time, a Meta spokesman said settling the class-action suit was “in the best interest of our community and shareholders.” The company added that it had revamped its privacy approach and “implemented a comprehensive privacy program.”
Despite agreeing to pay the settlement, “Meta expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing,” according to the lawsuit website.
Representatives for Meta didn’t immediately respond to MarketWatch’s request for comment on this story.
Meta shares were down 0.95% in the early afternoon on Wednesday and have gained nearly 80% year to date, compared with the S&P 500’s SPX, -0.01%
8.11% gain in 2023.
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
Velveeta’s microwaveable shells & cheese product takes just three and a half minutes to heat—among the quickest of quick lunches. Florida woman Amanda Ramirez claims it’s not that simple.
Ramirez’s attorneys filed court documents with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on November 18. In the suit against Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Ramirez alleges that heating up an individual serving of Velveeta Shells & Cheese consumes more time to prepare than advertised. She seeks $5 million in damages.
The complaint says instructions on the packaging are “false and misleading.” While the label says you should microwave shells & cheese for 3:30, Ramirez’s attorneys claim the timing doesn’t allow for all the steps required to make the meal. They allege that if you include those—removing the lid and sauce pouch, adding water, heating, then stirring—there’s no way the pasta will be ready in just 3:30.
The 15-page lawsuit also contends that the claim is merited because Kraft is essentially making money as “a result of…false and misleading representations.”
“The Product is sold at a premium price,” the complaint says, “approximately no less than $10.99 for eight 2.39 oz cups, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions.”
Ramirez isn’t just seeking $5 million in damages but also a new ad campaign that will correct the alleged misinformation.
Perhaps predictably, Heinz Foods issued a statement to CNN in which the company dubbed the lawsuit “frivolous” and said it “will strongly defend against the allegations in the complaint.”
Some Texas Pete customers are hot under the collar about where this sauce is actually cooked up.
A California man has filed a class action suit against the hot sauce maker, claiming it “capitalizes on consumers’ desire to partake in the culture and authentic cuisine of one of the most prideful states in America” with a name and label that plays up Texas — yet, the product is actually whipped up in Winston-Salem, N.C.
Hey, at least it wasn’t made in New York City!
The complaint filed by the Clarkson Law Firm on behalf of customer Philip White says that the dissatisfied customer bought a bottle of Texas Pete for about $3 at a Ralph’s Supermarket in September 2021, because he believed it was made in Texas. The suit claims that White would have passed over the bottle of Texas Pete if he knew it really came from North Carolina.
But with a name like Texas Pete, as well as a label featuring “distinct Texan imagery” like the “lone star” from the Texas flag and a cowboy, the suit says that consumers like White looking for an authentic Texas hot sauce are being misled.
“Because there is nothing ’Texas’ about Texas Pete, [the company’s] deceptive marketing and labeling scheme violates well-established federal and state consumer protection laws aimed at preventing this exact type of fraudulent scheme,” the suit states.
Garner Foods told MarketWatch in a statement over email that, “We are aware of the current lawsuit that has been filed against our company regarding the Texas Pete brand name. We are currently investigating these assertions with our legal counsel to find the clearest and most effective way to respond.”
It should be noted that both the Texas Pete and T.W. Garner Food Co. websites point out that the hot sauce is made in North Carolina. What’s more, the back label on the hot sauce bottle also reveals that it is made in the Tar Heel State.
But the suit argues that “consumers do not view the back label of the products when purchasing everyday food items such as hot sauce.” The plaintiffs are asking for unspecified damages, as well as for Texas Pete to change its label and advertising practices.
Or when Starbucks faced backlash several years ago as more consumers started realizing their beloved pumpkin spice lattes didn’t actually contain any pumpkin. The coffee chain has since tweaked the recipe to squeeze in autumn’s signature gourd.
