260129.mbx

260129.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 29, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 21 Headlines AEROPRES CORP: Agrees to Settle Antifungal Spray Suit for $4.85MM ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Sun Country APPLE INC: Campaigner Files GBP1.5-Bil. Class Suit Over Apple Pay BAYSIDE NY HOMES: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action for $400,000 BETTERMENT LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, McElwee Says BHG FINANCIAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach Claims BOTTLES ON 26TH: Faces Jones Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages CAPITAL ONE: McNichols Sues Over Deceptive Cash-Back Program CAPITAL ONE: PayPal Wins Bid to Seal Confidential Docs in "Hoard" CARE OF EXCELLENT: Underpays Direct Support Staff, Hickman Says CENTENE CORPORATION: Underpays Call Center Workers, McClure Alleges CHRISTIANACARE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Patients' Data Breach COSMEDICA SKINCARE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jackson Says DATAMAXX APPLIED: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Suit DELOITTE CONSULTING: Faces Suit Over 2024 RIBridges Data Breach DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Certifies Student Transportation Class DOT FOODS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Hunt Suit Says EQT CORP: Fails to Pay Fair Share of Oil Proceeds, Morris Says FLOCK GROUP: Hellerman Balks at Unlawful Sharing of Private Data FYZICAL ACQUISITION: Kunsman Balks at Unprotected Personal Info GILEAD SCIENCES: Court Denies "Searcy" Class Certification Bid GOLDEN BROTHERS: Krivenko Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages HOME DEPOT: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Simmons" Damage Protection Suit HSN INC: Faces Kramer Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website INSINKERATOR LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Badger Garbage Disposals JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Special Master Addresses 702 Daubert Motions JPMORGAN CHASE: Jones Sues Over Unfair Health Insurance Surcharges K G PUMPING: Faces Lliviganay Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. LENS.COM: Court Allows Partial Sealing of Evidence in "Martin" MANOLO BLAHNIK: Jackson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MC JAMES MORTGAGE: Uses Robocalls to Push Loan Offers, Suit Says MDL 3035: Wade Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Order MONROE UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Private Info, Hernandez Says MONROE UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Private Info, Ryan Alleges MONTCLAIR STATE UNIV: Kubicka Files Gender Discrimination Suit PEPSICO INC: Lee Files Suit Over Inflated Soft Drink Prices PHYSICIAN'S MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal info, Matthews Says PRESTIGE CONSUMER: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SCIPLAY CORP: Faces Herman Suit Over Illegal Gambling Scheme SERVICE EXPERTS: Johnson Sues Over Deceptive In-Home Sales Tactics SKIN GYM: Jackson Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users STATE FARM: Settles Structural Damage Class Action Suit for $25MM UNITED STATES: Hussen Sues Over Immigration Status Based-Arrests US ECOLOGY: Agrees to Settle Poletown East Class Suit for $1.56MM VITALANT: LaFrence Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls ZEUS NETWORKS: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Hokes Says ********* AEROPRES CORP: Agrees to Settle Antifungal Spray Suit for $4.85MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Bayer agreed to pay $4.85 million to resolve claims that Lotrimin and Tinactin antifungal sprays were contaminated with benzene, a known carcinogen. The Bayer settlement benefits consumers who purchased Lotrimin and Tinactin antifungal spray products that were subject to Bayer's October 2021 recall. This includes all Lotrimin and Tinactin spray products with lot numbers beginning with TN, CV or NAA, distributed between September 2018 and September 2021. Products covered by the settlement include: -- Lotrimin Anti-Fungal Athlete's Foot Powder Spray -- Lotrimin Anti-Fungal Jock Itch Powder Spray -- Lotrimin Anti-Fungal Athlete's Foot Deodorant Powder Spray -- Lotrimin AF Athlete's Foot Liquid Spray -- Lotrimin AF Athlete's Foot Daily Prevention Deodorant Powder Spray -- Tinactin Jock Itch Powder Spray -- Tinactin Athlete's Foot Deodorant Powder Spray -- Tinactin Athlete's Foot Powder Spray -- Tinactin Athlete's Foot Liquid Spray According to the class action lawsuit, Lotrimin and Tinactin antifungal sprays were contaminated with benzene, a known carcinogen. The presence of benzene in these products allegedly violated state laws and consumer protection statutes. Bayer is a healthcare and agriculture company that sells a variety of products under different brands, including Lotrimin and Tinactin sprays. Bayer has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $4.85 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Bayer settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of products they purchased and whether they provide proof of purchase. With proof of purchase, class members can receive a full refund for the products they purchased. Without proof of purchase, class members can receive $7 per product purchased, with a maximum of three products per household. Payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis depending on the number of claims filed. Class members who participated in Bayer's recall program may have their settlement payment reduced by the amount they received through the recall program. However, class members who received three payments under the recall program may be eligible for one no-proof-of-purchase payment. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 11, 2026. The final approval hearing for the antifungal spray settlement is scheduled for May 13, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 11, 2026. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased a Lotrimin or Tinactin product covered by Bayer's October 2021 recall, or products purchased from September 2018 to October 2021. Potential Award Up to $21 Proof of Purchase Proof of purchase showing the class member's actual purchase during the class period of one or more Bayer products (not required for minimum payments of $7 per product) Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 03/11/2026 Case Name Huertas, et al. v. Aeropres Corp., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-20021-SRC-CLW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Final Hearing 05/13/2026 Settlement Website AntifungalSpraySettlement.com Claims Administrator Antifungal Spray Settlement Administrator c/o Rust Consulting Inc. - 9111 PO Box 2661 Faribault, MN 55021-9661 info@antifungalspraysettlement.com (877) 434-3068 Class Counsel Steven L. Bloch SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP Max S. Roberts BURSOR & FISHER P.A. Timothy J. Peter FARUQI & FARUQI LLP Defense Counsel Andrew Soukup COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Chad Layton GOLDBERG SEGALLA Robert Baratta SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP Timothy Ray HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLC Adam Jagadich MAREN MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY LLC [GN] ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Sun Country ------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC, a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Allegiant Travel Company (NASDAQ: ALGT) related to its merger with Sun Country Airlines Holdings, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Allegiant shareholders will own approximately 67% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/allegiant-travel-company/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Sun Country Airlines Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: SNCY) related to its sale to Allegiant Travel Company. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Sun Country shareholders are expected to receive 0.1557 shares of Allegiant common stock and $4.10 in cash for each Sun Country share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sun-country-airlines-holdings-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Calavo Growers, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVGW) related to its merger with Mission Produce, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Calavo shareholders are expected to receive 0.9790 shares of Mission Produce common stock and $14.85 in cash for each share of Calavo common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/calavo-growers-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Mission Produce, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVO) related to its merger with Calavo Growers, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Calavo shareholders are expected to receive 0.9790 shares of Mission Produce common stock and $14.85 in cash for each share of Calavo common stock. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/mission-produce-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] APPLE INC: Campaigner Files GBP1.5-Bil. Class Suit Over Apple Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Guardian reports that the financial campaigner James Daley has launched a GBP1.5bn class action lawsuit against Apple over its mobile phone wallet, claiming the US tech company blocked competition and charged hidden fees that ultimately harmed 50 million UK consumers. The lawsuit takes aim at Apple Pay, which they say has been the only contactless payment service available for iPhone users in Britain over the past decade. Daley, who is the founder of the advocacy group Fairer Finance, claims this situation amounted to anti-competitive behaviour and allowed Apple to charge hidden fees, ultimately pushing up costs for banks that passed charges on to consumers, regardless of whether they owned an iPhone. It is the first UK legal challenge to the company's conduct in relation to Apple Pay, and takes place months after regulators like the Competition and Markets Authority and the Payments Systems Regulator began scrutinising the tech industry's digital wallet services. The case has been filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which will now decide whether the class action case can move forward. Daley said: "People will have no idea they've been paying more for everyday banking because of the way Apple has operated Apple Pay. "By shutting out competition and charging hidden fees, Apple has pushed up costs for millions of consumers. Shockingly, this doesn't just affect Apple Pay users or iPhone owners. Banks have passed these costs on to all customers, meaning everyone is paying the price." Apple said in a statement that the lawsuit was "misguided and should be dismissed", adding: "Apple Pay is a seamless and secure way for users to make contactless payments, and one of many payment options available to consumers. Apple does not charge fees to consumers or merchants for using Apple Pay, and banks see meaningful benefits from offering Apple Pay to their customers - most notably fraud reduction." The company said it had recently added tech capabilities, including near-field technology (NFC) and secure element (SE) application interfaces, which give third-party developers a way to enable contactless transactions from their own apps, including in the UK. "We will continue to ensure that UK customers have access to the payment options of their choice in a safe and secure environment." Daley's lawsuit alleges that Apple refused to give other app developers and outside businesses access to the contactless payment technology on its iPhones, which meant it could charge banks and card issuers fees on Apple Pay transactions that his lawyers say "are not in line with industry practice". The lawsuit notes that similar fees are not charged on equivalent payments on Android devices, which are built by Google. It says that the additional costs were borne by UK consumers, having been passed on through charges on a range of personal banking products ranging from current accounts, credit cards, to savings and mortgages. The lawsuit says that about 98% of consumers are exposed to banks that listed cards on Apple Pay, meaning the vast majority of the UK population may have been affected. While the case may only result in an average GBP26 payout for consumers, Daley said: "I'm bringing this claim because consumers have been treated unfairly, and I want to help them get back what they're owed. It's also important that big firms like Apple are held to account for this kind of anti-competitive behaviour. "The way it has run Apple Pay has quietly increased banking costs for consumers over many years. I want to put a stop to that - and secure compensation for the millions of people who have been affected." An incredible self-own . . . ... in 1936, John Scott, son of the late Guardian owner and legendary editor CP Scott, did something unheard of for a media heir: he gave up his stake for the greater good. After inheriting the newspaper, Scott renounced all financial benefit -- bar his salary -- in the Guardian (worth GBP1m at the time and around GBP62m today) and passed ownership over to the newly formed Scott Trust. The Trust would evolve to have one key mission: to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity. That means the Guardian can't be bought. Not by private equity, not by a conglomerate, and definitely not by a billionaire looking for a political mouthpiece. Our independence means we can say what we want, report on who we want, challenge who we want, and stand up at a time when others are sitting down. But this unique model also means we depend on readers like you from the Philippines to help fund our work. If you would rather the news you read was the result of decisions made by journalists and editors, not shareholders or ultra-wealthy tech bros, then we invite you to join our community of supporters. [GN] BAYSIDE NY HOMES: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action for $400,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Keller Williams Realty Landmark has agreed to pay $400,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging the real estate company sent unsolicited telemarketing texts to phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Keller Williams class action settlement received preliminary court approval on December 15, 2025, and covers all individuals associated with any of the 1,019 phone numbers connected to the litigation that were registered on the National Do Not Call registry for at least 30 days, and to which Deirde Folan sent more than one text message on behalf of Keller Williams within any 12 months between June 24, 2020 and December 15, 2025. The court-approved website for the Keller Williams TCPA settlement can be found at RealtyTCPASettlement.com. According to the website, Keller Williams settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment from the net settlement fund after any approved service awards, attorneys’ fees and settlement administration expenses have been paid. The settlement agreement notes that each Keller Williams class member may file one claim per telephone number associated with the settlement to receive benefits. To submit a Keller Williams settlement claim form online, class members can visit this page and enter the notice ID and confirmation code listed on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form from the settlement site to print, complete, and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator. All Keller Williams settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by March 16, 2026. A hearing to determine whether the court will grant final approval to the Keller Williams settlement will be held on April 15, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Keller Williams class action lawsuit alleged that the realty company sent to the phone numbers of consumers on the National Do Not Call Registry unsolicited telemarketing text messages, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. [GN] BETTERMENT LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, McElwee Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JARED MCELWEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BETTERMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00393 (S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2026) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's personal and sensitive information that it collected, including, without limitation, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, physical addresses, dates of birth, and other financial information. As a condition of becoming a recipient of Defendant's services, the Plaintiff was required to provide his personal information, including, but not limited to, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, physical addresses, dates of birth, and other financial information. According to the complaint, the personal information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the personal information of Plaintiff and Class Members. In addition to Defendant's failure to prevent the data breach, after discovering the breach, the Defendant delayed reporting the cyberbreach further harming Plaintiff and Class Members. As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea their personal information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm, says the suit. Betterment, LLC provides financial advisory company that offers digital investment, retirement, and cash management services to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore Corless, Esq. Kyle Mathew Hyman, Esq. COHEN LAW GROUP 350 North Lake Destiny Road Maitland, FL 32751 Telephone: (407) 478-4878 Facsimile: (407) 478-0204 E-mail: tcorless@itsaboutjustice.law khyman@itsaboutjustice.law BHG FINANCIAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the BHG Financial data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the BHG Financial data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. BHG Financial Security Incident: What Happened? On January 20, 2026, Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC, also known as BHG Financial, reported a data breach to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation. While the sample BHG Financial data breach notice letter provides little details on the incident itself, it has been reported that financial account information and Social Security numbers were exposed. BHG Financial, which has headquarters in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Davie, Florida; and Syracuse, New York, offers financial solutions for professionals, small businesses and institutions. What You Can Do After the BHG Financial Data Breach If your information was exposed in the BHG Financial data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force BHG Financial to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] BOTTLES ON 26TH: Faces Jones Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY JONES, on behalf of herself and other similarly-situated tipped employees v. BOTTLES ON 26th, LLC d.b.a. "Banter Cleveland" and MATTHEW J. STIPE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00091 (N.D. Ohio, January 14, 2026) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policy in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law. According to the complaint, the Defendants systematically failed to pay Plaintiff Tiffany Jones and other similarly-situated tipped employees any direct hourly wages, choosing instead to pay them "under the table" and rely solely on customer tips to subsidize their payroll obligations. The Defendants violated the federal and state laws by paying tipped employees a direct cash wage of $0.00 per hour -- far below the mandatory federal rate of $2.13 and the mandatory Ohio tipped rate -- thereby forfeiting their right to claim a tip credit and entitling Plaintiff and the Collective to the full minimum wage for every hour worked, says the suit. Plaintiff Jones was employed by the Defendants as a bartender from approximately January 26, 2024 to July 11, 2024. Bottles On 26th, LLC operates a bar and restaurant establishment in Cleveland, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Wido, Esq. SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY 3 Summit Park Drive, Ste 200 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 291-4744 Facsimile: (216) 291-5744 E-mail: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com CAPITAL ONE: McNichols Sues Over Deceptive Cash-Back Program ------------------------------------------------------------ ALAN B. MCNICHOLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE BANK, N.A.; CAPITAL ONE SHOPPING HOLDINGS, LLC; and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00145 (E.D. Va., January 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of quasi-contract and unjust enrichment; and violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of himself and all other participants in Defendants' "Capital One Offers" programs. Capital One has maintained a cash-back rewards program for its credit cardholders called "Capital One Offers" since at least 2022. Through the program, holders of most Capital One credit cards, can purportedly receive cash-back and statement credit by shopping at designated retailers. According to the complaint, Capital One regularly failed to provide Cardholders with the Payout that they had been promised in the Offer after the Cardholders made purchases in reliance on the Offer. In one instance, Capital One did not provide the Payout it had promised to Plaintiff pursuant to Offers for cashback on purchases made through Zappos for 6% in December 2023 and for 3% in September 2025. Capital One's conduct caused Cardholders to lose millions of dollars of Payouts as were promised under the Offers in the aggregate since Offers program's inception, benefiting Capital One at the expense of its customers, alleges the suit. Capital One Bank, N.A. is a national bank with its principal place of business McLean, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq. THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM 1100 N Glebe Rd, Suite 1010 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 665-9529 E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com - and - Carl L. Stine, Esq. Philip M. Black, Esq. Samuel Coffin, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Ave. New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com pblack@wolfpopper.com scoffin@wolfpopper.com CAPITAL ONE: PayPal Wins Bid to Seal Confidential Docs in "Hoard" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Azlynne Hoard and Chiquita Plenty, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Capital One, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 24-CV-1133 JLS (VET) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted PayPal Inc.'s Amended Motion to Intervene and Application for Partial Reconsideration of Order Denying Motions to File Documents Under Seal. PayPal sought to file under seal portions of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and accompanying exhibits and portions of Defendant's Opposition and accompanying exhibits because the documents contain PayPal's confidential business information. This information relates to technical details pertaining to both the front-end and back-end operation of the Venmo platform, internal processing and coding of transactions occurring on the Venmo platform, including transactions funded by credit cards, details of PayPal's business relationship and communications with its vendors and partners, Venmo's and PayPal's policies and procedures for coding and processing financial transactions occurring on the Venmo platform, changes to those policies and procedures, and the business rationales for those policies, procedures, and changes, financial transactions by PayPal users, and other aspects of Venmo's and PayPal's business, operations, and strategy. PayPal argued that public disclosure of this information would harm PayPal because it could be leveraged by PayPal's competitors and vendors to gain unfair advantages in emulating, competing against, and negotiating with PayPal in the future. Furthermore, public disclosure would harm PayPal's business relationships and erode trust in PayPal's platforms. Having independently reviewed the documents PayPal sought to seal, the Court found the compelling reasons standard was met. As PayPal contended, the documents contain sensitive and confidential business information, and courts generally find it appropriate to seal business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing. PayPal made a particularized showing as to the basis for sealing each document. The Court found that the requests to seal were narrowly tailored to the portions of the documents containing confidential and sensitive business information. The Court also previously granted leave to file similar information under seal. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=46HFxQ from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Capital One, N.A. was represented By Andrew J. Soukup, Ali Mojibi Yazdi,Marianne,Elizabeth Spencer Plaintiff Azlynne Hoard was represented By Adam A. Schwartzbaum,Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Scott Adam Edelsberg,Edwin Eliu Elliott,Amanda Rosenberg, Sophia Goren Gold CARE OF EXCELLENT: Underpays Direct Support Staff, Hickman Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY HICKMAN, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARE OF EXCELLENT, CO. and ASHLEY JACOBS, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00054-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, January 15, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The complaint asserts that the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to work substantial overtime hours while failing to pay them the statutory overtime premium of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. Plaintiff Hickman was hired by the Defendants from August 2, 2024 to November 2024 as a direct service provider. Care of Excellent, Co. provides home healthcare services which maintains its principal place of business in Franklin County, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Wido, Esq. SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY 25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 291-4744 Facsimile: (216) 291-5744 E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com CENTENE CORPORATION: Underpays Call Center Workers, McClure Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- JERRI MCCLURE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTENE CORPORATION and CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00072 (E.D. Mo., January 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff brings this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of herself, individually, and all hourly-paid, non-exempt call center workers employed by Defendants in Missouri, to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, plus interest, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the said federal and state laws. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Centene Corporation as an hourly, non exempt call center employee from approximately November 1, 2022 through July 15, 2025. His job duties included working in call center roles providing member services and customer support in support of Defendants' health insurance operations. Centene Corp. is a St. Louis, Missouri-based managed healthcare entity that administers government-sponsored and commercial health insurance plans to clients and customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Sands, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Michael Rinderman, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 E-mail: eric.sands@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com michael.rinderman@jtblawgroup.com CHRISTIANACARE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Patients' Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nick Stonesifer of Spotlight Delaware reports that after a data breach last year where an untold amount of patient information was harvested and disclosed, ChristianaCare and one of its third-party vendors are facing a class-action lawsuit claiming they acted negligently and continue to "obfuscate" details of the breach. The lawsuit was filed Dec. 17, 2025, weeks after a public notification from ChristianaCare announcing the breach, by two named plaintiffs, Chase Stout, a Newark resident, and Lisa Addi, from North East, Md. Cerner Corporation -- also known as Oracle Health -- a third-party vendor hospitals use to store patient information and data, is also named in the complaint. The plaintiffs are seeking restitution, damages, and asking a judge to prevent the hospital and Oracle from "further deceptive practices and making untrue statements about the data breach and the stolen sensitive information." The class-action suit comes on the heels of a proposed legal settlement between patients and another Delaware health system in Kent County, Bayhealth, that would see the hospital set aside $2.5 million for patients impacted by a data breach in 2024, the News Journal reported. According to this latest lawsuit, the ChristianaCare data breach occurred in January 2025. A November press release said Oracle had notified the hospital in April that "an unauthorized third party" had gained access to some of its legacy systems. At the end of September, the hospital received a list from Oracle of affected patients and the type of information that may have been impacted in the breach, like Social Security numbers and medical records, the press release said. The press release from the hospital did not specify how many patients were impacted, and the lawsuit claims that ChristianaCare and Oracle "continue to obfuscate the details of the breach as well as the nature of the breach." Still, the hospital did not make its public announcement of the breach until near the end of November. "Due to intentionally obfuscating language and a lack of formal notification, it is unclear how long it took defendants to discover that they had been subject to a breach and how long cybercriminals had unfettered access to plaintiffs' and the class's most sensitive information," the complaint said. Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for ChristianaCare said the hospital does not comment on pending litigation. ChristianaCare did not answer questions from Spotlight Delaware about how many patients were impacted, nor why it waited months to tell the public about the breach. In its November press release, the hospital said it had sent out letters to patients that had been impacted offering "a complimentary two-year membership to credit monitoring and/or minor identity protection services." Oracle also did not respond to a request for comment. The plaintiffs alleged that Oracle has yet to send patients notifications about their impacted data, and that the data breach was preventable. They also claimed Oracle failed to properly secure the data and prevent the leak of data. "In other words, defendants' cyber and data security systems were completely inadequate and allowed cybercriminals to obtain files containing a treasure trove of thousands of its patients' highly private sensitive information," the complaint said. [GN] COSMEDICA SKINCARE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jackson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSMEDICA SKINCARE, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00454 (S.D.N.Y., January 17, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://cosmedica-skincare.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on December 15, 2025, in an attempt to purchase an Instant Glow Kit from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Cosmedica Skincare operates the website that offers skincare products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal DATAMAXX APPLIED: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Datamaxx Applied Technologies has agreed to a settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging that the legal technology solutions company failed to properly secure the sensitive information stored on its systems, resulting in a December 2023 data breach. The Datamaxx Applied Technologies class action settlement received preliminary court approval on December 22, 2025, and covers all individuals in the United States whose private information was accessed or acquired by an unauthorized third party as a result of the December 2023 data breach. Per court documents, the private information of approximately 61,985 individuals may have been exposed during the data breach. The court-approved website for the Datamaxx data breach settlement can be found at DatamaxxSettlement.com. According to the website, Datamaxx settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can choose one of two cash payments. The first, referred to in settlement documents as "Cash Payment A," provides a cash payment of up to $2,500 in reimbursement for documented out-of-pocket losses originating from the data breach, including those related to fraud, identity theft, credit reporting fees, and cost to replace IDs. The settlement agreement notes that claims for this reimbursement option must be accompanied by supporting documentation prepared by a third party, such as invoices or receipts. The second option, referred to as "Cash Payment B" in court documents, is an alternative one-time cash payment of approximately $50. According to the settlement agreement, alternative cash payments will be pro-rated based on the number of valid claims received, and no proof is needed to receive the alternative cash payout. Class members may choose to receive their cash payout as an electronic payment or a paper check, the agreement relays, and all checks must be cashed within 120 days of issuance before expiration. In addition to any monetary benefits, the settlement site reports that all Datamaxx class members are eligible to enroll in three free years of one-bureau credit monitoring, which includes services like dark web scanning, comprehensive public records monitoring, and identity theft insurance. The settlement administrator will email eligible class members activation codes for a credit monitoring service within 60 days of final approval, the agreement says. To submit a Datamaxx settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and pin as found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form from the settlement website to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Datamaxx Applied Technologies settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by April 6, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Datamaxx settlement at a hearing on April 20, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Datamaxx Applied Technologies class action lawsuit alleged that the company did not implement proper cybersecurity measures to safeguard the private information stored on its networks, which led to a data breach approximately between December 1, 2023 and December 17, 2023. Per court documents, the information potentially compromised during the data breach included names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and medical information. [GN] DELOITTE CONSULTING: Faces Suit Over 2024 RIBridges Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Castro of Rhode Island Current reports that slightly more than 47,000 people have filed claims in a class action suit over the 2024 RIBridges data breach, according to a court filing January 22, Thursday, from the court-appointed settlement administrator. Kroll Settlement Administration, the national firm handling the claims, sent postcards to 729,946 people whose personal information was compromised by the breach of the state's public benefit and health insurance portal. These class members could pursue one of two reimbursements under the settlement terms. Those with documented losses related to the breach could apply for up to $5,000, while all class members were permitted a flat, approximately $100 payment sans proof. Class members could also submit claims for two years of medical data monitoring in addition to whatever payout they chose. The $100 estimated payment is subject to pro rata increase or decrease, meaning the final amount is dependent in part on how many people submitted a claim. The $6.3 million in the settlement fund will be dispensed first to medical monitoring costs, then documented loss payments and finally the flat payment recipients. The settlement fund has other costs to absorb as well: up to $2.1 million can go toward attorney and legal fees, and the class representatives -- the seven named plaintiffs in the lawsuit -- are eligible for up to $2,500 each. A Dec. 15 filing -- the plaintiffs' motion for final approval -- relayed additional details about what transpired between claim forms going out in late November and last week's deadline to submit. The filing noted that Kroll used address tracing to re-mail notices for some class members, and that the firm's expected success rate in reaching affected people "far exceed[ed] the Federal Judicial Center's standard of 70-95%." As of Dec. 8, 2025, Kroll reported that it had received 15,522 claim forms. The company also received 399 calls to the toll-free line, it reported a day later. "Class Counsel are pleased with the current Settlement class participation rate," the document reads. "With a month left before the Claim Form Deadline, Class Counsel anticipate the number of Claims will continue to increase." From the Dec. 8 data to the Jan. 14 deadline, claims more than tripled, rising roughly 204%. Patrick M. Passarella, senior director at Kroll, reported in the said filing that by the opt-out and objection deadline of Dec. 30, there were no objections and 35 opt-outs. He also noted that the response from 47,140 people, or 6.5% of the total amount of people who received mailers, was significantly higher than what is typically seen in data breach settlements. The settlement is expected to receive final approval next Thursday, on January 29, at U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island in Providence. An attorney for the plaintiffs did not respond to a request for comment by press time January 22. [GN] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Certifies Student Transportation Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Crystal Robertson, on behalf of herself and her minor child D.R.; Elizabeth Daggett, on behalf of herself and her minor child H.D.; Joann McCray, on behalf of herself and her minor child J.C.; Veronica Guerrero, on behalf of herself and her minor child A.F.; Marcia Cannon-Clark and David Clark, on behalf of themselves and their minor child B.R.C.; and The Arc of the United States, Plaintiffs, v. District of Columbia, Defendant, Civil Action No. 24-0656 (PLF) (D.D.C.), Judge Paul L. Friedman of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted class certification in a Memorandum Opinion and Order filed January 16, 2026. The named Plaintiffs are parents and guardians of students with disabilities whose individualized education programs (IEPs) entitle them to transportation services provided by the District of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE). They alleged that the District fails to provide adequate transportation to and from school for children with disabilities, thereby denying them the free appropriate public education (FAPE) to which they are entitled by law. The Plaintiffs alleged that OSSE's buses regularly arrive hours late to pick up students or never arrive at all, often with no notice to families, and that the buses lack the necessary equipment and staff to safely transport students with disabilities. As of January 31, 2024, there were 4,093 students with disabilities receiving transportation services from OSSE on approximately 550 daily bus routes. The District employs a team of over 1,000 drivers and attendants, using a fleet of around 650 OSSE-owned vehicles. The Plaintiffs presented expert declarations, parent declarations, and statistical analyses pointing to recurring, district-wide failures in transportation services, including inadequate bus route design, insufficient staffing and training, and inadequate oversight. The Court found that the Plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement. Analysis of bus trip tickets from October 2024 showed that 303 students were assigned to bus routes that arrived after the start of instruction at least once per week on average, and 161 students were assigned to bus routes that arrived after the start of instruction at least twice per week on average. The Court rejected the District's argument that the proposed class definition was impermissibly fail-safe, finding that membership in the class could be determined without reaching the merits of whether the District violated the IDEA or discrimination laws. Regarding commonality, the Court found that the Plaintiffs presented strong evidence of persistent problems with transportation services. The Court identified common questions of fact: does the District systematically fail to provide transportation services to class members, and do the alleged deficiencies deny class members the opportunity to benefit from educational services equal to their non-disabled peers. The Court also identified a common question of law: if the District is systemically failing to provide transportation services, does that failure deny students a FAPE under the IDEA. The Court distinguished this case from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, noting that unlike Title VII liability, IDEA liability does not depend on the reason for a defendant's failure. The Court found typicality satisfied because each class member's claim arises from the same course of events that led to the claims of the representative parties. The Court rejected the District's argument that the named Plaintiffs could not represent the class because they received individualized relief through administrative hearings, noting that all five individual named Plaintiffs alleged ongoing harms and that the hearing officer determinations did not afford them the systemic relief they seek. For adequacy, the Court found that the named Plaintiffs challenge the same conduct and allege the same harms as putative class members, with no antagonistic or conflicting interests. The Court appointed counsel for the named Plaintiffs as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g), finding them well-qualified based on their experience in civil rights litigation, disability rights litigation, and class actions. Under Rule 23(b)(2), the Court found that the District's alleged conduct is generally applicable to the class and that final injunctive relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. The Court explained that the Plaintiffs are not challenging individualized determinations regarding personal IEPs, but rather allege that the District's transportation system is plagued by systemic deficiencies that deprive students of adequate transportation in violation of federal and D.C. law. The Court appointed Margaret Warner of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Kaitlin Banner of The Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Katherine Zeisel of The Children's Law Center, and Shira Wakschlag of The Arc of the United States as class counsel. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dNy1q3 from PacerMonitor.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Represented By: Gregory Ketcham-Colwill -- gregory.ketcham-colwill@dc.gov -- Mateya Beth Kelley -- mateya.kelley@dc.gov -- David R. Wasserstein -- david.wasserstein@dc.gov -- at Office Of The Attorney General For The District Of Columbia Movant FRIENDSHIP PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL Represented By Rebecca Jarboe -- rjarboe@friendshipschools.org Plaintiffs ARC OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCIA CANNON-CLARK, DAVID CLARK, ELIZABETH DAGGETT, VERONICA GUERRERO, JOANN MCCRAY, CRYSTAL ROBERTSON, Represented By: Margaret Hanley Warner -- mwarner@mwe.com -- Theodore E. Alexander -- talexander@mwe.com -- and Eugene I. Goldman -- egoldman@mwe.com -- at Mcdermott Will & Emery LLP Katherine Ilene Zeisel -- kzeisel@childrenslawcenter.org -- at Children'S Law Center Kaitlin Rose Banner -- kaitlin_banner@washlaw.org -- Margaret Hart -- margaret_hart@washlaw.org -- Chelsea Sullivan -- chelsea_sullivan@washlaw.org -- at Wash.Lawyers' Cmte For Civil Rights & Urb.Affairs and Washington Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Shira Wakschlag -- shira@thearc.org -- and Evan Monod -- monod@thearc.org -- at The Arc Of The United States, Inc. DOT FOODS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Hunt Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- KENNY HUNT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOT FOODS, INC., AND DOT TRANSPORTATION, INC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03021-CRL-DJQ (C.D. Ill., January 16, 2026) is a civil action arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard certain personally identifying information of Plaintiff and other current and former employees, resulting in Defendant's network systems being unauthorizedly accessed between December 3-4, 2025. According to the complaint, the cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' private information. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class' private information in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a current employee of Defendant and a data breach victim. Dot Foods, Inc. is an American food industry redistributor with its principal place of business in Mt. Sterling, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com EQT CORP: Fails to Pay Fair Share of Oil Proceeds, Morris Says -------------------------------------------------------------- SINA MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EQT CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation, EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation, and BOP ACQUISITION, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company. Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00065 (W.D. Pa., January 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for engaging in a widespread scheme to acquire oil and gas rights from mineral interest owners while concealing that EQT already owed those owners proceeds from production of those same mineral interests. According to the complaint, the scheme essentially extinguished EQT's obligation to pay those owners their fair share of proceeds, and deceiving property owners into accepting purchase of their property with their own money. The Defendants conspired to profit from the breach of EQT's duties as the operator of mineral interest properties by, without limitation, attempting to: (1) extinguish EQT's obligations to pay lessors and unleased cotenants their full respective share of oil and gas production revenue; (2) acquire valuable mineral interest properties at an unlawful discount by concealing and misappropriating the proceeds owed to mineral interest owners; and (3) utilize the withheld proceeds to obtain an unlawful and illegal market advantage over other mineral interest purchasers, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members own mineral interests in oil, gas, and hydrocarbons in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio. EQT Corporation is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the business of purchasing, selling, and developing oil, gas, and hydrocarbon interests.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip C. Hook, Esq. Joy D. Llaguno, Esq. HOOK & HOOK PLLC 430 East Oakview Drive, Suite 101 Waynesburg, PA 15370 Telephone: (724) 824-3302 Facsimile: (724) 638-2186 E-mail: phook@hooklaw.com jllaguno@hooklaw.com FLOCK GROUP: Hellerman Balks at Unlawful Sharing of Private Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- JASON HELLERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLOCK GROUP, INC. d/b/a Flock Safety, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00515 (C.D. Cal., January 16, 2026) arises from the Defendant's engagement in unlawful data sharing in violation of the California Civil Code and California's Unfair Competition Law. Throughout California, drivers like Plaintiff are tracked by a network of automated license plate recognition (ALPR) cameras and software forming a vast, interconnected surveillance database. The Defendant, whose customers are law enforcement agencies, is set to provide a secure service enabling quick and comprehensive investigations without unlawfully intruding on driver privacy. According to the complaint, Flock easily could have implemented policies to prevent California law enforcement agencies from violating California enacted Senate Bill 34, a bill that permits use of ALPR technology but placing clear limits on the capture, use, storage, and sharing of ALPR data. But Flock has instead knowingly permitted its law enforcement clients to engage in unlawful information sharing. Flock has repeatedly and publicly disclaimed any responsibility for violations of SB 34, instead blaming California law enforcement agencies for any violations. In so doing, Flock has ignored its ability -- and duty -- not only to comply with SB 34 itself but also to ensure its California law enforcement clients' compliance, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff and the Class claim that they have been harmed by Flock's alleged conduct because their private and sensitive personal information has been insufficiently protected and improperly shared with federal agencies and out-of-state agencies without notice or their consent. Flock Group, Inc., d/b/a Flock Safety, manufactures automotive safety equipment. The Company provides vehicle license plates, fast and easy footage access, and crime-solving cameras. Flock Group serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Matthew A. Pearson, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com mapearson@pwfirm.com - and - Renner K. Walker, Esq. Steven M. Nathan, Esq. Gisela Rosa, Esq. Jacob Leiken, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: rwalker@hausfeld.com snathan@hausfeld.com zrosa@hausfeld.com jleiken@hausfeld.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Ida Abhari, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1201 17th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com iabhari@hausfeld.com FYZICAL ACQUISITION: Kunsman Balks at Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON KUNSMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FYZICAL ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00125 (M.D. Fla., January 15, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of all persons, who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in December 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, it adds. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Fyzical Acquisition Holdings LLC is the parent entity of Fyzical Therapy & Balance Centers, a provider of physical therapy treatment and programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com GILEAD SCIENCES: Court Denies "Searcy" Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jonathan Searcy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-1523-MTS (E.D. Mo.), Judge Matthew T. Schelp of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on January 22, 2026. The Court also ordered that Defendant's Motions to Exclude Testimony are denied without prejudice. The Court finally ordered that Plaintiffs' Conditional Motion for Remand is denied. The Court concluded that class certification is not appropriate. Plaintiffs Jonathan Searcy and Ervin Kirk, two HIV-positive men, were prescribed and took medications manufactured by Gilead that worked exactly as prescribed, effectively managing their HIV. The medications did so safely; neither Plaintiff alleges that he suffered any personal injury from taking them. Plaintiffs' operative Complaint claims that they overpaid for Gilead's medications based on its alleged misconduct. They sought to represent a class of individuals who purchased the relevant medications in Missouri. Gilead owned the exclusive rights to tenofovir and developed two prodrugs relevant to this action, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF). Plaintiffs maintain that TAF is safer and more effective than TDF. They allege that though Gilead knew this to be true, it concealed TAF's allegedly superior safety profile and deliberately delayed TAF's release to prolong market share dominance through a patent-extension strategy. Gilead then launched TAF around two years before TDF's patent expired, which Plaintiffs allege allowed Gilead to convince patients to switch from its patent-expiring TDF-based medications to TAF-based medications. Plaintiffs assert that when Gilead sold TDF-based medications as the safest antiviral HIV drug known to it, Gilead violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and was unjustly enriched under Missouri law. The Court previously denied Gilead's Motion to Dismiss both claims against it. The Court found that Plaintiffs' class definition includes individuals who lack standing. The constitutional requirement of standing is equally applicable to class actions. The Eighth Circuit held that a class cannot be certified if it contains members who lack standing. Evidence in the record shows that across all prescriptions for TDF-containing medications filled at CVS pharmacies in Missouri between January 1, 2010, and October 31, 2015, consumers paid nothing for approximately fifty-six percent of these prescriptions. The Court concluded that purchasers who paid nothing out of pocket for medications that are worth something necessarily lack an economic injury. In response to this problem, Plaintiffs argue that even those who paid nothing or miniscule amounts still suffered an Article III injury because Missouri law entitles them to benefit of the bargain damages. But under Article III, an injury in law is not an injury in fact. Therefore, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs have not shown that each member of the proposed class would have standing to assert an MMPA claim. The Court explained that determining which members of the class had an ascertainable loss is hopelessly individualized, and class certification is therefore improper. The Court found that Plaintiffs' unjust-enrichment claim fares no better. The Eighth Circuit explained in Folgers that whether a particular transaction might be considered inequitable or unjust turns on the specific circumstances of each transaction, which again places individual inquiries front and center. The Court also found that Plaintiffs' damages model for calculating class-wide benefit of the bargain damages does not pass muster. Plaintiffs' model purports to calculate class-wide damages by finding the difference between each TDF drug's artificially inflated market value over the class period and each TDF drug's true market value without Gilead's unlawful practices. The Court agreed with Defendant that the way Plaintiffs calculate both measures is fundamentally flawed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sBJBdX from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Gilead Sciences, Inc. Represented By: David Ryan Carpenter -- drcarpenter@sidley.com -- and Joshua E. Anderson -- janderson@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin LLP; and Charles N. Insler -- cni@heplerbroom.com -- and Thomas J. Magee -- tm1@heplerbroom.com -- at Hepler Broom LLC Plaintiff Darren Johnson Represented By Adam Matthew Evans -- aevans@breneslawgroup.com -- at Hollis Law Firm PA and J. Toji Calabro -- tojicalabro@calabro-law.com -- at Calabro Law Office GOLDEN BROTHERS: Krivenko Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMILA KRIVENKO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN BROTHERS, INC. (d/b/a GOLDEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.), a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-CV-00075-JFS (M.D. Pa., January 14, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, she and Defendant's hourly employees earned bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. But Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. The Plaintiff and other hourly employees were deprived by the Defendant of full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of one and a half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from July 1, 2023 through November 7, 2025 as a non-exempt auditor. Golden Brothers, Inc. focuses on the production of medical equipment with headquarters in Old Forge, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com HOME DEPOT: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Simmons" Damage Protection Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Randall Simmons, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-2409-MLB (N.D. Ga.), Judge Michael L. Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division granted Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff Randall Simmons reserved a tiller online and declined damage protection. A couple of days later, Plaintiff went to a Home Depot store in Pelham, Alabama to pick up the tiller. At checkout, Plaintiff received the rental agreement, and the first page listed Plaintiff's charges, including $8.85 for damage protection. Plaintiff signed that page of the agreement. Plaintiff claims Home Depot violated the rental agreement by defaulting all customers to opting into damage protection despite the contract making it clear that the damage protection is optional and must be selected. Specifically, he contends Home Depot violated Section 4(I)(b) of the contract because, under that section, for [Plaintiff] to have been charged," he must have affirmatively selected damage protection—and he did not. Section 4(I)(b) of the agreement provides in pertinent part: Tool damage protection is an optional service offered by The Home Depot that, if selected, modifies this Agreement to relieve Renter of repair charges, replacement charges or Administrative Charges if the Equipment is damaged during normal use during the Rental Period. Renter must accept or decline the Tool Damage Protection. The Court agreed with Home Depot's interpretation of Section 4(I)(b). The plain, unambiguous terms of that section neither require a customer to affirmatively select damage protection before being charged for it nor prohibit Home Depot from designating it as the default election. The Court found that Section 4(I)(b) just requires that damage protection remain an optional service, and so long as Home Depot provided customers with the ability to opt out of damage protection, the charge was optional within the plain meaning of that term. The Court stated, "One can 'accept,' 'elect,' or 'select' a service without taking any affirmative action." Further, the Court found no textual support for Plaintiff's argument that Section 4(I)(b) prohibits Home Depot from making damage protection the default selection. The contract makes no mention of default settings and the presence of a default does not change the optional nature of the charge. Regarding Plaintiff's online reservation, the Court held that Plaintiff's elections during his online reservation were not part of the agreement due to the merger clause. The agreement included a merger clause which supersedes conduct that supposedly happened online and before the parties signed the agreement. The Court explained that in written contracts containing a merger clause, prior or contemporaneous representations that contradict the written contract cannot be used to vary the terms of a valid written agreement purporting to contain the entire agreement of the parties. The Court concluded, Home Depot fulfilled its obligations under Section 4(I)(b) by giving Plaintiff the option to decline damage protection prior to consummating the agreement. He signed the agreement with the damage protection charge in place—thus signaling his selection or acceptance of the coverage—and cannot object now that Home Depot wants to enforce the terms to which he agreed. The Court found Plaintiff fails to state a claim because no possible relief can be granted under any construction of the contract sued upon. Under its unambiguous terms, Home Depot did not breach the agreement when it: (1) charged Plaintiff for damage protection without an affirmative opt-in; (2) set damage protection as a default election for customers; or (3) included damage protection in Plaintiff's final agreement, despite his alleged declination of that charge while reserving the tiller online. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vk8fIQ from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc., Represented By Sidney Stewart Haskins, II -- shaskins@kslaw.com -- James Andrew Pratt -- apratt@kslaw.com -- Mandi Elizabeth Youngblood -- myoungblood@kslaw.com -- and Jonathan Kaufman -- jkaufman@kslaw.com -- at King & Spalding Llp - Atl Plaintiff Randall Simmons Represented By W. Lewis Garrison, Jr. -- wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC; and Taylor C. Bartlett -- taylor@bowlinelaw.com -- at Bowline Law HSN INC: Faces Kramer Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- BETH KRAMER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HSN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00367 (S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2026) alleges that Defendant's website, www.hsn.com, contains widespread accessibility issues that interfere with the ability of Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired users to navigate the site, understand product information, and interact with essential features in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. On three separate occasions -- November 15, 2025, November 20, 2025, and December 10, 2025 -- Plaintiff Kramer attempted to use the website using the screen reader, NVDA to browse and obtain information about various skincare products sold through HSN's online retail platform. These visits were part of her routine efforts to research and purchase personal-care items that she uses to manage her daily needs. While attempting to access the products, the Plaintiff encountered numerous accessibility barriers that prevented NVDA from reading or interpreting essential content on the product pages. These barriers included missing or placeholder alternative text on product images, unlabeled interactive controls, broken links, empty URLs, and pricing information that was not programmatically conveyed, says the suit. The alleged barriers affect the usability of the website for individuals who depend on screen-reading technology and limit their ability to participate in online retail on equal terms with sighted consumers. HSN, Inc. is a company headquartered in St. Petersburg, Florida, and operates the website that retails skincare products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com INSINKERATOR LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Badger Garbage Disposals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that InSinkErator has manufactured and sold its Badger garbage disposals with galvanized steel that, unbeknownst to consumers, is neither durable nor suitable for long-term use due to corrosion. The 111-page defective product lawsuit contends that although InSinkErator has marketed its Badger Series garbage disposals as durable and "built to last," the products are, in truth, made with cheap materials susceptible to rust and premature failure. In particular, the InSinkErator garbage disposals at issue—the Badger Models 100 and 1XL in the Model 1 family, and 500 and 5XL in the Model 5 family—are made with galvanized steel whose zinc coating will begin to corrode "almost immediately once it is installed and exposed to water," the complaint alleges. The lawsuit accuses InSinkErator of deceiving consumers, who would not have purchased the products or paid as much for them had they known the truth about the items' materials. The corrosion, the lawsuit continues, leads to the degradation of the garbage disposal, which can ultimately harm its functionality and efficiency and shorten the product's lifespan. Per the filing, zinc corrosion can cause perforation or cracks within the metal body of the garbage disposal, which, due to its location within a sink, has reportedly been the source of leaking and water damage to floors, cabinetry and other surrounding areas. According to the complaint, several components of the Badger disposals are made with galvanized steel that are prone to corrosion, including the uniform energy factor, the rotating shedder plate, and the stationary shedder ring. "[D]espite the explicit representation that the Badgers' galvanized steel materials were used in the design of the Badgers for 'Disposer Durability,' galvanized steel is an improper material for use in a garbage disposal due to the galvanized steel's exposure to a consistently wet environment full of debris during regular sink and disposal use," the lawsuit summarizes. The case further alleges that InSinkErator, which has been owned by the Whirlpool Corporation since 2022, was aware of the fact that galvanized steel is an ineffective material to be used for a garbage disposal, yet has continued to advertise the products to consumers as a corrosion-resistant, durable option. In fact, the class action lawsuit cites the original design patent for garbage disposals from John Hammes, who would go on to establish the InSinkErator company in 1938, which "specifically calls for the use of non-corrosive materials, such as aluminum." Although the original InSinkErator design calls for the use of non-corrosive materials, when the Badger models were unveiled in the late 1980s, this specification was ignored in favor of cheaper materials, like galvanized steel, the complaint relays. Another significant issue arising from this design choice, the lawsuit describes, is that consumers have no reasonable way to view their garbage disposals or determine the source of any complications. The case asserts that, should a consumer report concerns of rusting or corrosion to InSinkErator, the company states that it is merely "discoloration" or "cosmetic," and that there is no need for concern. "Thus, when consumers make warranty claims related to leaking, the claims are responded to with entirely misleading information, improperly denied, or consumers are sent or purchase another defective Badger that has failed or is likely to fail again because of the Defect," the lawsuit claims. The InSinkErator class action lawsuit looks to represent all consumers in the United States who either purchased a new InSinkErator Badger model garbage disposal manufactured on or after December 15, 2018 (or the earliest time permitted by the statute of limitations period; acquired a Badger model as part of a purchase of a new home or remodel; or received as a gift a new Badget model from a donor not used by any other consumers. [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Special Master Addresses 702 Daubert Motions --------------------------------------------------------------- Special Master Hon. Freda L. Wolfson (ret.) of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued her report and recommendation on multiple Daubert motions filed by the parties in the multidistrict litigation styled IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2738 (D.N.J.) This multidistrict litigation consists of thousands of lawsuits filed by individual consumers, represented by the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, who claim that prolonged perineal use of Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products causes ovarian cancer. As part of coordinated pretrial proceedings, Plaintiffs and the moving defendants -- Johnson & Johnson and LLT Management, LLC, and now known as Red River Talc, LLC -- have filed multiple Daubert motions. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(a), the Court appointed Hon. Freda L. Wolfson (ret.) as the Special Master for the limited purpose of addressing the parties' Federal Rule of Evidence 702 Daubert-related motions. The parties filed a total of 17 motions challenging the admissibility of expert testimony. Starting in October 2016, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") began transferring all federal actions involving talc-related ovarian cancer to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Since its inception, tens of thousands of cases have been filed in the MDL. According to the JPML, as of January 5, 2026, this litigation has over 67,000 actions now pending, with additional short form complaints filed on a daily basis, making this the largest pending MDL in the United States by a significant margin. After years of discovery in this MDL, in 2019, the parties proffered experts on various scientific issues related to general causation and the testing of talcum powder for asbestos and other contaminants. Each side moved to exclude the testimony of certain of the other side's experts. It is undisputed that Defendants used talc sourced from mines in Italy, the United States (specifically, Vermont) and China for its Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products. Daubert Motions The parties have collectively filed a total of 17 Rule 702 motions, which generally fall into four (sometimes overlapping) categories: (1) general causation; (2) contamination and testing; (3) specific causation; and (4) corporate knowledge, safety, regulatory compliance, and marketing. The parties seek to exclude, in whole or in part, the testimony of at least 39 experts. Specifically, Plaintiffs have filed the following nine motions: 1. Motion to Exclude the Geology Opinions of Drs. Mary Poulton and Laura Webb (ECF No. 32996); 2. Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Dr. Kathleen Sutcliffe (ECF No. 32998); 3. Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Drs. Michael Finan, Cheryl Saenz, and Kevin Holcomb (ECF No. 32999); 4. Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Dr. Jennifer Permuth (ECF No. 33001); 5. Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Drs. Juan Felix and Teri Longacre (ECF No. 33002); 6. Motion to Exclude the Asbestos Testing Opinions of Matthew S. Sanchez, Ph.D., Ann G. Wylie, Ph.D. and Shu-Chun Su, Ph.D. (ECF No. 33006); 7. Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Dr. Analisa DiFeo (ECF No. 33010); 8. Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Dr. John Kornak (ECF No. 33011); and 9. Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Defense Expert Witness Dr. Jeff Boyd (ECF No. 33060). Defendants have filed the following eight motions: 1. Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Drs. David Kessler, Laura Plunkett, William Sage and George Newman (ECF No. 33000); 2. Motion to Exclude the Specific Causation Opinions Offered by Dr. Judith Wolf (ECF No. 33003); 3. Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Dr. John Godleski (ECF No. 33004); 4. Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Experts' Opinions Regarding Alleged Heavy Metals and Fragrances in Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower (ECF No. 33005); 5. Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Dr. Daniel Clarke-Pearson (ECF No. 33007); 6. Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Experts' General Causation Opinions (ECF No. 33008); 7. Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Experts' Asbestos-Related Opinions (ECF No. 33012); and 8. Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Experts' Opinions Regarding Biological Plausibility/Mechanism (ECF No. 33013). After the bankruptcy stay terminated and this MDL resumed, the parties urged, and the Court agreed, that the Rule 702 motions should be decided in an expeditious manner so that the first bellwether trial can be conducted in Carter Judkins v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 3:19-cv-12430-MAS-RLS. The sum total of what Defendants seek to exclude is the Plaintiffs' experts' opinions that asbestos can cause ovarian cancer. The Special Master recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Experts' Opinions Regarding Biological Plausibility/Mechanism. Plaintiffs' experts' opinions regarding the plausibility of upward migration, as well as the association between talcum powder and inflammation and oxidative stress, and association between chronic inflammation and oxidative stress and ovarian carcinogenesis, are largely admissible by a preponderance of the evidence. She recommends that the Court exclude Plaintiffs' experts' migration-via-inhalation theory and macrophage-inhibition theory, as they respectively fail to satisfy the preponderance standard under Rule 702 as amended. Because Plaintiffs' experts failed to substantiate their opinions on heavy metal, the Special Master recommends that the Court grant Defendants' motion to exclude Plaintiffs' causation experts' opinions that heavy metals contribute to the toxicity and/or carcinogenicity of Defendants' products. The Special Master finds that Defendants have established by a preponderance of the evidence the admissibility of the genetics-related general causation conclusions of Drs. Saenz, Holcomb, Finan, DiFeo, and Permuth. At this stage, she is not deciding the admissibility of these experts' genetics-related specific causation opinions. Accordingly, she recommends that the Court deny the portions of Plaintiffs' motions premised on the inadmissibility of genetics-related general causation opinions, but limit their opinions on unidentified genetic mutations, yet-to-be-discovered genetic mutations, and/or VUS to being possible, not inevitable, causes. The Special Master recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Boyd. She recommends that the Court deny Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Dr. Poulton. The Special Master recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Drs. Kessler, Plunkett, Sage, and Newman. A copy of the Court's Report and Recommendation dated January 22, 2026, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZYU326 About J&J Talc Units LLT Management, LLC (formerly known as LTL Management LLC) was a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that was formed to manage and defend thousands of talc-related claims and oversee the operations of Royalty A&M. Royalty A&M owns a portfolio of royalty revenue streams, including royalty revenue streams based on third-party sales of LACTAID, MYLANTA/MYLICON and ROGAINE products. LTL Management first filed a petition for Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Case No. 21-30589) on Oct. 14, 2021. The case was transferred to New Jersey (Bankr. D.N.J. Case No. 21-30589) on Nov. 16, 2021. The Hon. Michael B. Kaplan is the case judge. At the time of the filing, the Debtor was estimated to have $1 billion to $10 billion in both assets and liabilities. In the 2021 case, LTL Management tapped Jones Day and Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A., as bankruptcy counsel; King & Spalding, LLP and Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP as special counsel; McCarter & English, LLP as litigation consultant; Bates White, LLC as financial consultant; and AlixPartners, LLP as restructuring advisor. Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC, served as the claims agent. On Dec. 24, 2021, the U.S. Trustee for Regions 3 and 9 reconstituted the talc claimants' committee and appointed two separate committees: (i) the official committee of talc claimants I, which represents ovarian cancer claimants, and (ii) the official committee of talc claimants II, which represents mesothelioma claimants. The official committee of talc claimants I tapped Genova Burns LLC, Brown Rudnick LLP, Otterbourg PC and Parkins Lee & Rubio LLP as its legal counsel. Meanwhile, the official committee of talc claimants II is represented by the law firms of Cooley LLP, Bailey Glasser LLP, Waldrep Wall Babcock & Bailey PLLC, Massey & Gail LLP, and Sherman Silverstein Kohl Rose & Podolsky P.A. Re-Filing of Chapter 11 Petition On Jan. 30, 2023, a panel of the Third Circuit issued an opinion directing this Court to dismiss the 2021 Chapter 11 Case on the basis that it was not filed in good faith. Although the Third Circuit panel recognized that the Debtor "inherited massive liabilities" and faced "thousands" of future claims, it concluded that the Debtor was not in financial distress before the filing. On March 22, 2023, the Third Circuit entered an order denying the Debtor's petition for rehearing. The Third Circuit entered an order denying LTL's stay motion on March 31, 2023, and, on the dame day, issued its mandate directing the Bankruptcy Court to dismiss the 2021 Chapter 11 Case. The Bankruptcy Court entered an order dismissing the 2021 Case on April 4, 2023. Johnson & Johnson on April 4, 2023, announced that its subsidiary LTL Management LLC (LTL) has re-filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D.N.J. Case No. 23-12825) to obtain approval of a reorganization plan that will equitably and efficiently resolve all claims arising from cosmetic talc litigation against the Company and its affiliates in North America. In the new filing, J&J said it has agreed to contribute up to a present value of $8.9 billion, payable over 25 years, to resolve all the current and future talc claims, which is an increase of $6.9 billion over the $2 billion previously committed in connection with LTL's initial bankruptcy filing in October 2021. LTL also has secured commitments from over 60,000 current claimants to support a global resolution on these terms. In August 2023, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael Kaplan in Trenton, New Jersey, ruled that the second bankruptcy case should be dismissed. 3rd Try In May 2024, J&J announced its subsidiary LLT Management LLC is soliciting support for a consensual prepackaged bankruptcy plan to resolve its talc-related liabilities. Under the terms of the plan, a trust would be funded with over $5.4 billion in the first three years and more than $8 billion over the course of 25 years, which J&J calculates to have a net present value of $6.475 billion. Claimants must cast their vote to accept or reject the Plan by 4:00 p.m. (Central Time) on July 26, 2024. A solicitation package may be requested at www.OfficialTalcClaims.com or by calling 1-888-431-4056. If the Plan is accepted by at least 75% of voters, a bankruptcy may be filed under the case name In re: Red River Talc LLC in a bankruptcy court in Texas or in the bankruptcy court of another jurisdiction. Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC is serving as balloting and solicitation agent for LLT. On Sept. 20, 2024, Red River Talc LLC filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 24-90505). Porter Hedges LLP and Jones Day serve as counsel in the new Chapter 11 case. Epiq is the claims agent. Paul Hastings LLP is counsel to the Ad Hoc Committee of Supporting Counsel. Randi S. Ellis is the proposed prepetition legal representative of future claimants. JPMORGAN CHASE: Jones Sues Over Unfair Health Insurance Surcharges ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASHIA JONES on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION and JPMORGAN CHASE U.S. BENEFITS EXECUTIVE, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00513 (D.N.J., January 15, 2026) challenges Defendants' unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" under the JPMorgan Chase Health and Wellness Centers Plan in a manner that violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the implementing regulations. The Plaintiff was an employee of JPMorgan who paid the unlawful tobacco surcharge to maintain health insurance coverage under the Plan. The Plaintiff asserts that the surcharge imposed an additional financial burden on her and continues to impose such a burden on those similarly situated. The complaint alleges that JPMorgan imposed discriminatory and punitive health insurance surcharges on employees who use tobacco products. The Defendants' Plan imposes an $80 monthly tobacco surcharge through payroll deductions while failing to operate a compliant wellness program under ERISA. The Plan does not clearly or consistently establish a reasonable alternative standard that informs participants of all available avenues to avoid the surcharge Defendants impose the surcharge on employees and covered spouses who are classified as tobacco users, locks that status in for the entire plan year, and limits relief to prospective plan years only. The Defendants also fail to disclose in all Plan materials that participants may qualify for the reward through a physician-directed alternative, fail to ensure that participants who complete the alternative standard receive the full reward for the Plan year, and retain surcharge amounts collected even after participants satisfy the alternative standard, says the suit. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a national banking association chartered under the laws of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Spitz, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 8 Campus Drive, Suite 105 PMB#161 Parsippany, NJ 07054 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: jspitz@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com K G PUMPING: Faces Lliviganay Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ Roberto Lliviganay, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. K G Pumping Corp. d/b/a KG Concrete Pumping and Kevin Gonsalez Garcia, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00221 (E.D.N.Y., January 15, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff complains that he is entitled to recover from Defendants: (i) back wages for unpaid overtime premium for overtime work which Defendants willfully failed to pay; (ii) liquidated damages for these violations; and (iii) statutory damages for the Defendants' violations of the Wage Theft Prevention Act, having caused Plaintiff financial harm. Plaintiff Lliviganay was employed by the Defendants as a driver and heavy machinery operator from approximately October 2022 until October 25, 2025, driving trucks and operating concrete pumping equipment. K G Pumping Corp., d/b/a KG Concrete Pumping, owns and operates a concrete pumping and heavy machinery services business with a place of business in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew D. Beresin, Esq. Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway, Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com LENS.COM: Court Allows Partial Sealing of Evidence in "Martin" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Rickey Martin v. Lens.com, Inc., CASE NO. 0:24-cv-60489, Judge DAVID S.LEIBOWITZ of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida addressed Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal. Plaintiff sought to redact information from a publicly filed Reply memorandum and seal an expert report, consistent with the court's prior sealing order covering seven categories of confidential materials including discovery responses, deposition transcripts, financial statements, pricing algorithms/source code, and business agreements. The Court granted the motion in part on January 12, 2026. Plaintiff was permitted to file previously ordered sealed exhibits in support of his reply memorandum under seal. However, the Court denied Plaintiff's request to seal the entire expert report of Steven Heffner, which analyzed the sealed pricing algorithm/source code. Instead, Plaintiff may only redact "highly-confidential" information from the publicly filed version of the report. The Court ordered Plaintiff to provide an unredacted hard copy of Mr. Heffner's expert report to Chambers for in camera review by January 19, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c7MNmM from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiff Rickey Martin Represented By Joshua Adam Migdal -- josh@markmigdal.com -- at Mark, Migdal & Hayden; Courtney Cooper Gipson -- cgipson@mtattorneys.com -- James Matthew Stephens -- mstephens@mtattorneys.com -- Robert G. Methvin, Jr. -- rgm@mtattorneys.com -- at Methvin, Terrell, Yancey, Stephens & Miller, P.C.; and Matthew Herman at Meyers & Flowers LLC Defendant Lens.com, Inc. Represented By James W Lee -- jlee@bsfllp.com -- and Laselve Elijah Harrison -- lharrison@bsfllp.com -- at Boies, Schiller , Flexner LLP; and Mark M. Bettilyon -- mark.bettilyon@tnw.com -- Jed H. Hansen -- hansen@tnw.com -- and Joseph M. Harmer -- joseph.harmer@tnw.com -- at Thorpe North & Western LLP MANOLO BLAHNIK: Jackson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANOLO BLAHNIK AMERICAS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00455 (S.D.N.Y., January 17, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.manoloblahnik.com/us, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on December 9, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Black Kitten Pointed Heels from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Manolo Blahnik Americas LLC operates the website that retails shoes and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal MC JAMES MORTGAGE: Uses Robocalls to Push Loan Offers, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for MPA, reports that a mortgage lender is accused of using robocalls to push loan offers without permission, landing the company in federal court this month. Mc James Mortgage Corp, doing business as Liberty Financial, is facing a proposed class action in California federal court after a consumer alleged the company used prerecorded voice messages to market its loan products without consent. The case, filed on January 16, 2026, puts a spotlight on a marketing tactic that continues to expose mortgage lenders to legal and financial risk. The lawsuit centers on David Torres, an Illinois resident who says he received more than one prerecorded call on his cell phone on May 22, 2025. According to court filings, the calls came from two different phone numbers and played the same message, with a voice identifying himself as "Eric" from "the liberty group" pitching a loan offer that had supposedly been mailed to Torres. The message described it as "a good opportunity to get the cash you need to stay ahead with all the changes." Torres says he never gave the company permission to contact him, and that he could easily tell the calls were prerecorded because the voice sounded "generic." The case has been brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the federal law that restricts telemarketing calls using artificial or prerecorded voices. Under the statute, companies that make such calls without prior consent can face damages of $500 per call, or as much as $1,500 per call if a court finds the violation was willful or knowing. The lawsuit seeks class certification on behalf of anyone in the United States who received similar prerecorded calls from the company over the past four years. Court documents estimate that at least 50 people were contacted without consent, which means potential liability could climb quickly if the case moves forward. Beyond damages, the lawsuit also asks for an injunction to stop the company from making such calls in the future. No determination has been made on the merits of the case, and the allegations remain untested in court. Still, the lawsuit serves as a timely reminder for mortgage lenders about the risks tied to outbound marketing campaigns. The TCPA's per-call damages structure can turn a routine calling operation into a multimillion-dollar exposure when claims are aggregated across a class. Consent documentation and dialing practices are areas where even small missteps can prove costly. The case also highlights a broader enforcement reality. Court filings note that while the Federal Communications Commission levied over $200 million in penalties against robocallers between 2015 and 2018, it collected less than $7,000. That gap has made private lawsuits like this one the main avenue for holding companies accountable under the law. [GN] MDL 3035: Wade Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Order -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wade, et al v. Newport Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01126 (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order reconsidering the limited portions of the Class Certification Order. Specifically, the Plaintiffs request that the Court reconsider: 1. Whether the damages model offered by the Plaintiffs' experts, Martin Dirks and Harris Devor, satisfies Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and Comcast's "fit" requirement as to three specific, discrete breaches of fiduciary duty by the Defendants Dr. Jerome V. Harris and Robert Eaton; and 2. Whether classwide damages for certain of the non-civil-conspiracy claims may be measured through common, transaction-specific, non-expert methodologies independent of the Dirks/Devor model, such that those claims likewise satisfy predominance under Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs do not seek reconsideration of the Court's rulings concerning commonality, nor of the Court’s determination that common questions predominate with respect to Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim. Reconsideration is appropriate to correct clear error and to prevent manifest injustice and granting this limited relief will not delay trial or prejudice any party. Any additional class notice necessitated by reconsideration can be accomplished efficiently through a supplemental notice process well in advance of trial. The Wade suit is consolidated in AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation (MDL 3035). The MDL 3035 concerns the mismanagement of the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church's pension funds, with court documents like transfer orders, opinions, and orders available as PDFs on government sites like GovInfo and court portals for case details. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OwRc5S at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (855) 496-7500 E-mail: mlee@leesegui.com - and - Gregorio A. Francis, Esq. OSBORNE & FRANCIS LAW FIRM, PLLC 2707 E. Jefferson Street Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (561) 293-2600 Facsimile: (561) 923-8100 E-mail: gfrancis@realtoughlawyers.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Susan L. Meter, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 Facsimile: (818) 350-6274 E-mail: smeter@kantorlaw.net - and - Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Ave S Nashville, TN 37210 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 E-mail: kbyrd@lchb.com - and - Dhamian Blue, Esq. BLUE LLP Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 833-1931 Facsimile: (919) 833-8009 E-mail: dab@bluellp.com - and - Richard Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr. Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-9999 Facsimile: (937) 435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com - and - Julie Nepveu, Esq. AARP FOUNDATION 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2075 Facsimile: (202) 434-6424 E-mail: jnepveu@aarp.org MONROE UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Private Info, Hernandez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY TERESITA HERNANDEZ Plaintiff v. MONROE UNIVERSITY, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00631 (S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to use reasonable measures to protect Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, the "Private Information"). The class action arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant Monroe, which held in its possession certain PII and PHI of Plaintiff and other current and former students and applicants of Defendant, the putative class members ("Class"). The Data Breach occurred between December 9 and December 23, 2024 when cybercriminals perpetrated the attack. Today, the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members have been compromised--all because of Defendant's negligence. The Plaintiff and Class Members now suffer from a present and continuing risk of harm, including fraud and identity theft, and must now constantly monitor their financial accounts, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief, including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant. Plaintiff Teresita Hernandez is a resident and citizen of the State of New York. Defendant Monroe University is a New York-based entity incorporated in New York that provides higher education for residents of many states. Defendant's principal place of business is 2501 Jerome Ave., Bronx, New York 10468.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Ryan J. McGee, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com Ronald.Podolny@forthepeople.com rmcgee@forthepeople.com MONROE UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Private Info, Ryan Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER RYAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. MONROE UNIVERSITY, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00370 (S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiffs and Class Members' name, date of birth, Social Security, number, driver's license number, passport number, government identification number, medical information, health insurance information, electronic account or email username and password, financial account information, and/or student data ("Private Information"). The complaint relates that the customers are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information as a condition of receiving goods and/or services. Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the company relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information--and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. The complaint alleges that in breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, the Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Jennifer Ryan is a resident and citizen of Connecticut and a former student of Defendant. Defendant Monroe University, Ltd. is a for-profit institution of higher education.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Drive Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com MONTCLAIR STATE UNIV: Kubicka Files Gender Discrimination Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- ANITA KUBICKA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY, JONATHAN KOPPELL, President of Montclair State University, individually and in his official capacity, DAVID L. VERNON, Vice President of Human Resources of Montclair State University, individually and in his official capacity, and CARLY HAMILTON, Assistant Vice President, Employee and Labor Relations of Montclair State University, individually, and in her official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00441-ES-JBC (D.N.J., January 14, 2026) is an action brought against the Defendants pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the New Jersey Constitution, and applicable New Jersey state law. The complaint arises from Defendants' gender discrimination and deprivation of Plaintiff's federal and state constitutional, statutory and common-law rights, resulting in a hostile work environment, wrongful termination and long-term damage to her college coaching career. Plaintiff Kubicka also alleges that Defendants have retaliated against her assertion of gender discrimination by refusing to conduct a fair, neutral and effective investigation despite known risks that gender stereotypes and socialization influenced the information used to justify her suspension and termination. Before MSU suspended her as of April 13, 2023, Plaintiff Kubicka had been an athletic coach at MSU for 33 years -- most recently as the multiple award-winning Head Coach of Softball since 1990. Montclair State University is a New Jersey state-owned public institution of higher education whose athletic teams participate in the NCAA Division III - New Jersey Athletic Conference. Jonathan Koppell is the University president.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen L. Dreyfuss, Esq. HELLRING LINDEMAN GOLDSTEIN & SIEGAL LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 403 Roseland, NJ 07068-1031 Telephone: (973) 621-9020 Facsimile: (973) 621-7406 E-mail: sldreyfuss@hlgslaw.com - and - Thomas Newkirk, Esq. Myles Young, Esq. NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, P.L.C. 3900 Ingersoll Ave, Suite 201 Des Moines, IA 50312 Telephone: (515) 883-2000 Facsimile: (515) 883-2000 E-mail: tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com myoung@newkirklaw.com PEPSICO INC: Lee Files Suit Over Inflated Soft Drink Prices ----------------------------------------------------------- CASSIDY LEE, CARLA LOWN, FREDERICK ROZO, and GALINA WIND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEPSICO, INC.; and WALMART INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-00329 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2026) challenges an agreement between Pepsi and Walmart to inflate and maintain wholesale and retail prices for Pepsi's bottled soft drinks above competitive levels. According to the complaint, since at least 2018, Pepsi and Walmart have coordinated to suppress wholesale and retail competition for Pepsi soft drinks so that both companies can charge higher-than competitive prices. This alleged scheme has two components: First, Pepsi agreed to police retail prices at Walmart's competitors, and to require retailers of Pepsi soft drinks to charge their retail customers no less than Walmart's retail prices for Pepsi soft drinks. By preventing retail price competition for Pepsi soft drinks through these mechanisms, Pepsi enabled Walmart to charge supracompetitive retail prices while still claiming the lowest retail prices in the market. Second, in return for Pepsi's actions to shut down retail price competition and protect Walmart's "price leadership," Walmart agreed to accept inflated wholesale prices from Pepsi. Absent Pepsi's actions to shut down retail price competition, Walmart would have required Pepsi to lower its wholesale prices so that Walmart could compete with lower market retail prices while maintaining the same or similar profit margins, says the suit. As a result of the scheme, the Plaintiffs and other consumers paid inflated prices for Pepsi soft drinks. The Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants for injunctive relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and for treble damages under the antitrust laws and consumer protection laws of the several states. PepsiCo, Inc. is a manufacturer of beverages and processed foods based in Harrison, New York. Walmart Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. Walmart is headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander W. Cogbill, Esq. ZELLE LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 920 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 876-4420 E-mail: acogbill@zellelaw.com - and - Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq. Qianwei Fu, Esq. ZELLE LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1230 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com qfu@zellelaw.com PHYSICIAN'S MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal info, Matthews Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ WANDA MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHYSICIAN'S MEDICAL BILLING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00119-RDB (D. Md., January 13, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of all persons, who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The Plaintiff is a former patient of Defendant's client. Physician's Medical Billing, Inc. is a full-service medical billing and accounts receivable management firm that provides services to numerous clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 612-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com PRESTIGE CONSUMER: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRESTIGE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00318 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.pedia-lax.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on December 16, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Pedia-Lax(R) Liquid Glycerin Suppositories from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Prestige Consumer Healthcare Inc. operates the website that offers laxative products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal SCIPLAY CORP: Faces Herman Suit Over Illegal Gambling Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ SEAN HERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCIPLAY CORPORATION; and SCIPLAY GAMES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00139 (W.D. Wash., January 15, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, to redress Defendants' widespread violations of Washington's gambling laws. Defendants SciPlay Corporation and SciPlay Games, LLC own, operate, and receive significant revenue from their online "social" casino available on various mobile apps, where they offer casino-style slots games that operate based on a digital currency called "coins" which can be purchased and wagered for extended gameplay along with other upgrades and rewards. Under the alleged unlawful scheme, the Defendants sell digital coins to consumers on the SciPlay Gambling Platform and then immediately accepts those coins back (from the consumers who purchased them) as wagers on the outcomes of the various casino-style games of chance offered on the SciPlay Gambling Platform. The Plaintiff and other consumers who purchase and then wager virtual coins on the SciPlay Gambling Platform do so in the hopes of winning more of these coins, which can be used to place more wagers and, in some instances, unlock new gambling games or extend their gameplay once they have run out of coins to wager with. The Plaintiff and numerous other Washington residents have lost significant sums of their hard earned money buying and placing wagers with coins on the SciPlay Gambling Platform, and Defendants have, in turn, reaped enormous profits from the losses these people have sustained, alleges the suit. SciPlay Corporation is a private company organized and existing under the laws of Nevada, with a place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas R. Major, Esq. NICK MAJOR LAW PLLC 450 Alaskan Way S, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 410-5688 E-mail: nick@nickmajorlaw.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 Broadway, Fl. 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gucovschilaw.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com SERVICE EXPERTS: Johnson Sues Over Deceptive In-Home Sales Tactics ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUANITA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SERVICE EXPERTS, LLC; SERVICE EXPERTS HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING LLC, and ADVANTAGE EXPERTS SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00061-LCB (N.D. Ala., January 13, 2026) is a proposed class action against the Defendants for engaging in a scheme called the "Advantage Program," which targets homeowners, many of which are elderly like Plaintiff, through standardized and deceptive in-home sales tactics in violation of the Federal Consumer Leasing Act and the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Under the Advantage Program, Service Experts dispatches sales agents to convince homeowners to purchase a new HVAC system through "low-cost financing." However, Service Experts' sales agents do not tell the unsuspecting homeowners the Advantage Program involves a ten-year lease. The long lease period results in, at minimum, a doubling of the HVAC equipment's cost, and the terms of the lease prohibit the customer from owning the HVAC equipment. When Advantage Program customers discover the ten-year lease, there is little they can do about it because that lease imposes an alleged outrageous termination-penalty. The customers end up trapped in a long-term lease that was sold to them by Service Experts as a low-cost financing program, alleges the suit. Service Experts, LLC is an HVAC, plumbing and electrical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason W. Earley, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 3500 Blue Lake Drive, Suite 430 Birmingham, AL 32543 Telephone: (205) 905-7878 E-mail: jason@jefirm.com SKIN GYM: Jackson Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------ SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKIN GYM INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00351 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.skingymco.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on December 9, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a LED Pro Red Light Head Cap from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Skin Gym Inc. operates the website that offers skincare products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal STATE FARM: Settles Structural Damage Class Action Suit for $25MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDEPOT reports that individuals who owned property in Missouri that State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. insured by and who made a structural damage claim for a loss between June 5, 2012, and approximately October 2017 may be eligible to submit a claim for a cash payment from a class action settlement. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. agreed to pay $25 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it improperly deducted labor and other nonmaterial costs, referred to as "nonmaterial depreciation," from actual cash value payments on certain structural damage claims in Missouri. Who can file a State Farm settlement claim? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- State Farm Fire and Casualty insured them under a structural damage policy covering residential or business property in Missouri. -- They made a structural damage claim for a residential or business property located in Missouri with a date of loss on or after June 5, 2012, and before approximately October 2017. -- They received an actual cash value payment on their claim in which State Farm deducted estimated nonmaterial depreciation or estimated general contractor overhead and profit depreciation. -- OR they would have received an actual cash value payment but State Farm's deduction of the depreciations caused the calculated ACV figure to drop below their deductible. Who is excluded from the class? The settlement class excludes certain claims: -- Claims under State Farm policy forms, including endorsement form FE-3650, that expressly permit the depreciation of labor within the policy text do not qualify for the settlement -- Claims where State Farm's actual cash value payments exhausted the applicable insurance limits How much is the settlement payout? The settlement administrator will determine payment amounts by the specifics of the State Farm claim and how the company applied and recovered depreciation: -- Policyholders who received an ACV payment with nonmaterial or GCOP depreciation deducted and did not recover all depreciation through RCBs can submit a claim to receive a cash payment of 90% of the nonmaterial depreciation that State Farm initially deducted and did not recover plus 50% of the GCOP depreciation, if any, it did not recover. The payment amount will also include simple interest at 8.9% per year from Aug. 6, 2021, through the settlement effective date. -- Policyholders who received an ACV payment with nonmaterial or GCOP depreciation deducted and recovered all depreciation through RCBs at a later date can submit a claim to receive a cash payment of simple interest at 8.9% per year on 90% of the no-material depreciation and 50% of the GCOP depreciation, if any, that State Farm initially applied but later recovered. The settlement administrator will calculate interest from the date of the initial ACV payment through the final RCB payment. -- Policyholders who did not receive an ACV payment because the deduction of depreciation caused the ACV to drop below the deductible can submit a claim to receive a cash payment of 90% of the portion of nonmaterial depreciation and 50% of the portion of GCOP depreciation, if any, that they did not receive in excess of the deductible. The payment amount will also include simple interest at 8.9% per year from Aug. 6, 2021, through the settlement effective date. How to claim a class action rebate To claim a settlement payment, class members must print and complete the PDF claim form. They can upload the claim form online or mail it to the settlement administrator. Each covered loss requires a separate claim form. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Pregon v. State Farm Settlement, c/o JND Legal Administration, PO Box 91215, Seattle, WA 98111 Class members must upload the claim form online or postmark it by April 2, 2026. Required claim information -- Class members must include the policy number, claim number, date of loss and address of the insured property on the claim form. -- Those submitting a claim form on behalf of a deceased class member must state how and when they became the legally authorized representative for the class member and must provide supporting documentation, which may include a court order or a letter of power of attorney. Payout options -- Paper check mailed to the address provided $25 million State Farm settlement fund The $25,000,000 settlement fund will include: -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $5,125,000 -- Service award to class representative: $7,500 -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds State Farm is paying the costs of administering the settlement separately from the settlement fund. Important dates -- Exclusion deadline: Jan. 30, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: March 3, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: April 2, 2026 When is the State Farm settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants after it completes claim processing and the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? This class action lawsuit alleged State Farm improperly deducted nonmaterial depreciation, such as labor and other nonmaterial costs, from actual value payments on structural damage claims in Missouri. State Farm denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation and trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Varies Deadline: April 2, 2026 [GN] UNITED STATES: Hussen Sues Over Immigration Status Based-Arrests ---------------------------------------------------------------- MUBASHIR KHALIF HUSSEN, MAHAMED EYDARUS, and JAVIER DOE on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; TODD M. LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; DAVID EASTERWOOD, in his official capacity as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director for St. Paul, Minnesota; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; RODNEY S. SCOTT, in his official capacity as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. BORDER PATROL; MICHAEL W. BANKS, in his official capacity as Chief of U.S. Border Patrol; and GREGORY BOVINO, in his official capacity as Commander-at-Large of U.S. Border Patrol, Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-00324-PAM-ECW (D. Minn., January 15, 2026) seeks to end a startling pattern of abuse spearheaded by the Department of Homeland Security that is fundamentally altering civic life in the Twin Cities and the state of Minnesota. According to the complaint, masked federal agents are violently stopping and arresting Plaintiffs and countless Minnesotans based on nothing more than their race and perceived ethnicity irrespective of their citizenship or immigration status, or their personal circumstances. At the center of DHS' campaign are Somali and Latino people, who are being targeted for stops and arrests based on racial profiling motivated by prejudice. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to halt three unlawful policies and practices: -- federal agents are stopping people to question them about immigration status without reasonable suspicion of removability -- and particularly targeting those they perceive to be Somali or Latino; -- federal agents are arresting people for immigration reasons without warrants and without probable cause to believe that they are removable, outrageously including U.S. citizens (who plainly cannot be detained for civil immigration purposes) and individuals with immigration status; and -- federal agents are making warrantless arrests without probable cause to believe the person is a flight risk. The constitutional guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and federal statutory law, prohibit these kinds of police-state tactics. These arrests are also being carried out with an unprecedented level of violence. People targeted by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have been handcuffed, tackled, and beaten by federal agents. Agents have broken car windows, dragged people from their cars, and used pepper spray and tear gas against compliant, non-violent people, the suit adds. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated to put an end to DHS' unlawful policies and practices in Minnesota, which are contrary to the basic precepts of liberty and equality central to the United States. U.S. Department of Homeland Security is the federal agency responsible for administering and enforcing the nation's immigration laws. Kristi Noem is the Secretary of DHS and is sued in her official capacity.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Spencer Amdur, Esq. Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: samdur@aclu.org osarabia@aclu.org - and - Kathryn Huddleston, Esq. Lucia Goin, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 915 15th Street NW, 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (212) 549-2500 E-mail: khuddleston@aclu.org lgoin@aclu.org - and - Omar C. Jadwat, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 E-mail: ojadwat@aclu.org - and - Robert Fram, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 591-7025 E-mail: rfram@cov.com - and - Gregg Levy, Esq. Paul Killebrew, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 E-mail: glevy@cov.com pkillebrew@cov.com - and - Bree Peilen, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP 30 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 E-mail: bpeilen@cov.com - and - Teresa Nelson, Esq. Catherine Ahlin-Halverson, Esq. Alicia Granse, Esq. Benjamin Casper, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MINNESOTA P.O. Box 14720 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (651) 529-1692 E-mail: tnelson@aclu-mn.org cahlin@aclu-mn.org agranse@aclu-mn.org bcasper@aclu-mn.org - and - Ian Bratlie, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MINNESOTA 424 N. Riverfront Dr. No. 34 Mankato, MN 56001 Telephone: (507) 995-6575 E-mail: ibratlie@aclu-mn.org - and - Amran A. Farah, Esq. Aaron P. Knoll, Esq. Benjamin Larson, Esq. Michelle E. Morrow, Esq. Nicholas Scheiner, Esq. Kshithij Shrinath, Esq. X. Kevin Zhao, Esq. GREENE ESPEL PLLP 222 S. Ninth Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 373-0830 E-mail: afarah@greeneespel.com aknoll@greeneespel.com blarson@greeneespel.com mmorrow@greeneespel.com nscheiner@greeneespel.com kshrinath@greeneespel.com kzhao@greeneespel.com - and - Raoul Shah, Esq. Bahram Samie, Esq. Ellen Levish, Esq. Stacey Slaughter, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 E-mail: rshah@robinskaplan.com bsamie@robinskaplan.com elevish@robinskaplan.com sslaughter@robinskaplan.com US ECOLOGY: Agrees to Settle Poletown East Class Suit for $1.56MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ethan Bakuli, writing for Planet Detroit, reports that US Ecology Detroit South settled class action lawsuit with nearby residents in August. -- The agreement requires the facility, on the edge of the Poletown East neighborhood, to invest at least $1.56 million to prevent and mitigate odors. -- "It's near impossible to entertain your guest(s) outdoors especially without subjecting them as well as yourself to this horrific odor," says plaintiff Paul Burks. In the months leading up to the December renewal of US Ecology Detroit South's operating license by Michigan regulators, the hazardous waste facility reached a settlement agreement with nearby residents who sued the business, alleging nuisance and negligence due to the emission of noxious odors. The parties reached a settlement in March 2025, and the court granted a $2.34 million judgment Aug. 8, 2025. Residents Paul Burks, Jeffrey and Melanie Curry, who live within 1 mile of US Ecology Detroit South, are the lead plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed in Wayne County Circuit Court in January 2024. The approximately 350 residents within a 1-mile radius of US Ecology Detroit South who signed on to the class action lawsuit are estimated to receive roughly $1,000 each. The three plaintiffs will receive an additional $2,500 per household. The agreement requires US Ecology Detroit South, located at St. Aubin and Frederick on the edge of the Poletown East neighborhood, to invest at least $1.56 million through 2028 to improve its facility's ability to "prevent and mitigate potential odor emissions in the future." Residents near US Ecology Detroit South: We can't enjoy outdoor activities Residents voiced their frustration and concern in the lawsuit about potential health hazards and lowered property values associated with the nuisance odors. "It's near impossible to entertain your guest(s) outdoors especially without subjecting them as well as yourself to this horrific odor," Burks said in the complaint. "You absolutely smell stinky from even the briefest moments outside." Resident Sandra Boyd said that she "could not open my windows, or cook outside on my grill, or go jogging on nice days" due to the odors. Roman Blahoski, a spokesperson for Republic Services, which owns US Ecology Detroit South, told Planet Detroit the company is "abiding by the terms of the agreement." Attorneys for the residents who sued and for US Ecology Detroit South did not respond to requests for comment on this story. In the settlement agreement, US Ecology said it does not admit or concede to any wrongdoing, with the facility's lawyers stating that the settlement avoids "further litigation expense and disruption of the management and operation of its business." US Ecology passes latest state inspection The hazardous waste license renewed by the Michigan Department of Energy, Great Lakes, and the Environment (EGLE) allows the site to continue storing and treating millions of gallons of waste through 2035. The court's requirements for facility improvements are separate from the permit requirements of the state's 10-year hazardous waste license, said Josef Stephens, an EGLE spokesperson. "EGLE was not party to that lawsuit and does not monitor compliance with the court's requirements," Stephens said in an email. "EGLE's license requires EQD (US Ecology) to install odor control technology by Dec. 31, 2027. But, unlike the court order, our license does not specify a minimum amount to be spent." Residents called for US Ecology Detroit South to be shut down as state regulators considered the facility's license renewal application, citing dozens of state air quality violations and complaining of noxious odors. In October, the Wayne County Commission unanimously approved a resolution in opposition to the facility's license renewal. US Ecology is required to meet multiple air quality conditions in the state license, including providing a new air quality control plan by March and sampling air conditions every six days. These steps will be reviewed by EGLE's air quality division. A new odor management plan explicitly limits the volumes of waste that can be treated in the facility's tanks, which can store millions of gallons of hazardous-and non-hazardous materials at any given time. Nuisance odors verified by EGLE staff "could result in 25% reduction in waste volume and reduction in treatment additives addition rate," according to a recent EGLE presentation of the license conditions shared with Planet Detroit. The last routine inspection conducted of US Ecology Detroit South was on Jan. 14, said Todd Zynda, an inspector for EGLE. The facility was confirmed to be in compliance, but will still have to meet the more stringent requirements of the new license, environmental regulators said. "I'm kind of surprised that they agreed to this with us, but I'm happy that they did," Zynda said, referring to US Ecology agreeing to the stricter terms of the new license. Zynda made the comment while speaking at a Jan. 15 community meeting hosted by the Detroit Hamtramck Coalition for Advancing Healthy Environments. "Before, if we give them an odor violation, they pay a stipulated penalty, and they were going to look into it. Now, there's real impacts to what they are treating, and we have a regulatory authority to enforce them." [GN] VITALANT: LaFrence Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY LAFRENCE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VITALANT, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-00334-JMB-DTS (D. Minn., January 15, 2026) is a class action arising from Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint asserts that the Defendant uses unlawful and invasive telemarketing tactics to drum up business. And Defendant flooded Plaintiff with invasive telemarketing solicitations in clear violation of the TCPA. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harassed by Defendant and its unlawful telemarketing tactics. Vitalant is a domestic nonprofit corporation headquartered in Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com cmiller@straussborrelli.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com ZEUS NETWORKS: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Hokes Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAJAYE HOKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZEUS NETWORKS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00361 (N.D. Cal., January 13, 2026) is a class action suit brought against Defendant Zeus Networks, LLC for violating the Video Privacy Protection Act. Zeus Networks owns and operates a website at www.thezeusnetwork.com. The Defendant sells subscription memberships to its video content, which allows members to stream movies and TV shows 24/7. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, when they watched videos on the website, the Defendant knowingly and intentionally disclosed users' personally identifiable information -- including a record of every video viewed by the user -- to unrelated third parties, including but not limited to Vimeo, Inc. By doing so, Defendant violated the VPPA, alleges the suit. Zeus Networks, LLC is a subscription-based video on demand streaming service that creates its own original pre-recorded shows.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Roberts, Esq. Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Caroline C. Donovan, Esq. Victoria X. Zhou, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com ykopel@bursor.com cdonovan@bursor.com vzhou@bursor.com - and - Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jwilner@bursor.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***