260319.mbx

260319.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 19, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 56 Headlines AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Class Suit Over Allergens in Body Wash APELLIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit in D. Mass. Dismissed CAMPING WORLD: Faces Securities Class Action in N.D. Ill. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action in Ill. Over Tariff Refunds COSTCO WHOLESALE: Suit Seeks Refunds on Tariff Related Price Hikes DREAM GAMES: Continues to Defend Washington Gambling Class Suit DRIVEN BRANDS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit FCA US LLC: Tanner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Faces Local Union's Securities Class Suit GOEASY LTD: SMK Law Investigates Possible Class Action GRAMMARLY INC: Faces Class Action Over AI "Expert Review" Feature GRAY MEDIA: Continues to Defend Local TV Advertising Class Suit GREG GOSSETT: Bid for New Trial Denied in "Ross" HIGH FIVE: Continues to Defend Social Casino-Themed Games Suit HORMEL FOODS: Continues to Defend Turkey Antitrust Class Suit IDEAL IMAGE: Agrees to $3.5MM Web Tracking Class Action Settlement IMPERIAL BEACH: Maldonado Suit Removed to S.D. California IMPERIAL BEACH: Ramirez Suit Removed to S.D. California INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE: Settles Underinsured Motorist Suit for $4M IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit J. R. SIMPLOT COMPANY: Westbrook Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KRISTI NOEM: Court Stays Somalia TPS Termination Pending Review LENOVO UNITED: Sued Over Sharing US Consumers' Data With China MARINUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Trims Claims in "Bishins" MDL 3173: Court Denies Consolidation of 9 DTS Cases in N.D.N.Y. MDL 3174: 7 Muan Air Crash Incident Cases Consolidated in W.D. Wash MDL 3175: 6 Cases Consolidated in Shell Eggs Antitrust Litigation METROWEST CREDIT: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach MONDAY.COM LTD: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit MONSANTO COMPANY: Howell Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Lowe Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Distribution NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Settles Motorist Claims Class Suit for $2.65MM NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 5 NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: $11.5MM Settlement Final Hearing Set Aug. 13 ODDITY TECH: Faces Class Action Over Securities Laws' Violations ORTHOCINCY ORTHOPAEDICS: W.W. Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky PHH MORTGAGE: $1.5MM Settlement Ends Notice Letters Class Lawsuit QANTAS AIRWAYS: Agrees to $74MM Settlement in COVID Flight Credits TARGET CORPORATION: "Buckmaster" Settlement Has Prelim Approval TD BANK: Court Narrows Claims in "Chiew" TESLA INC: Judge Dismisses Odometer Class-Action Lawsuit TOM'S OF MAINE: Loses Bid to Toss Lead Contamination Lawsuit WALT DISNEY: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Class Action for $50-Mil. ********* AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Class Suit Over Allergens in Body Wash ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon.com Inc. are facing a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiff Sequoia King. Why: King claims Amazon falsely advertises its Amazon Basics Hypoallergenic Body Wash for Sensitive Skin contains no allergens. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Amazon of falsely advertising its Amazon Basics Hypoallergenic Body Wash for Sensitive Skin as being free from allergens. Plaintiff Sequoia King filed the class action complaint against Amazon.com Services and Amazon.com on Feb. 6 in New York federal court, alleging violations of state consumer laws. According to the Amazon class action lawsuit, the market for skin-sensitive hygiene and beauty products has exploded as consumers seek products that can help relieve or otherwise not agitate certain skin irritations brought on by conditions like eczema and external conditions like pollution, stress and exposure to harsh weather. King says that Amazon's Hypoallergenic Body Wash for Sensitive Skin claims on the label to be "hypoallergenic," and that images on the same sales page reaffirm this quality, noting that the product is "dermatologist tested" and provides a "gentle cleaning and is hypoallergenic." However, she claims the product is made with fragrance chemicals, which are some of the most common causes of skin allergies. Amazon's conduct allegedly violates New York business law King claims she purchased the product because she sought a body wash advertised and marketed as being made for "sensitive skin." She says she regularly seeks out hygiene products that do not contain irritants due to her psoriasis. The plaintiff says she reviewed Amazon's representations that the product was "hypoallergenic" and made for sensitive skin and reasonably believed that the product did not contain any ingredients known to be irritants like fragrances. "Had defendants disclosed that the product contained ingredients known to cause skin irritation like fragrances, the plaintiff would not have purchased the product or would not have paid the same amount that she did," the class action lawsuit states. The lawsuit alleges that Amazon's conduct violated New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350. As a result, King is looking to represent anyone who bought the product in New York. She is suing for violations of New York consumer laws and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Similarly, Albertsons Companies Inc. is facing allegations in California that it deceptively marketed its Signature Care Sensitive Skin Body Wash as hypoallergenic. The plaintiff is represented by Max S. Roberts, Victoria X. Zhou and Caroline C. Donovan of Bursor & Fisher P.A. The Amazon class action lawsuit is King v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01062, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] APELLIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit in D. Mass. Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in February 24, 2026, that in March 2025, the United States District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts dismissed, without prejudice and without leave to amend, a putative class action complaint that was filed in August 2023 against the company and certain current and former of its executive officers, which alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by misrepresenting and/or omitting certain material facts related to the design of its “SYFOVRE” clinical trials and the risks associated with its commercial adoption, and sought, among other relief, compensatory damages and equitable relief in favor of the alleged class against all defendants, including interest, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred by plaintiffs, including attorneys’ and expert fees. In April 2025, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which conducted a hearing in January 2026. Apellis is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company known for marketed drugs that target C3, the central protein in the complement cascade namely, SYFOVRE (pegcetacoplan injection), EMPAVELI (pegcetacoplan), for the treatment of C3 glomerulopathy, or C3G, and primary immune complex membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis, or primary IC-MPGN. CAMPING WORLD: Faces Securities Class Action in N.D. Ill. --------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that it has filed a class action, Siverd v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 26 Civ. 2710, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of investors who acquired Camping World Holdings, Inc. ("Camping World" or the "Company") (NYSE:CWH) securities during the period of April 29, 2025 through February 24, 2026, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Camping World investments, you have until May 11, 2026 to request lead plaintiff appointment. Courts do not consider lead plaintiff applications submitted after this deadline. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. For more information about the lawsuit: http://kmllp.com/cases-investigations/camping-world-holdings-inc What Is This Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that (i) the Company overstated its ability to "surgically manage [its] inventory" to optimize profit using "data analytics;" (ii) the Company overstated the retail demand of consumers it was experiencing and/or reasonably expected; (iii) as a result, the Company would require "strict, corrective inventory management objectives," negatively impacting gross profit and margins; and (iv) the Company's inadequate systems and processes prevented it from ensuring reasonably accurate disclosures and/or guidance, including about the health of its balance sheet and/or the ability to manage SG&A expenses. On October 28, 2025, after the market closed, Camping World released its third quarter 2025 financial results, reporting, among other things, that "new vehicle revenue was $766.8 million for the third quarter, a decrease of $58.1 million, or 7.0%," "average selling price of new vehicles sold decreased 8.6%," and "new vehicle gross margin was 12.7%, a decrease of 81 basis points, driven primarily by the 8.6% decrease in the average selling price per new vehicle sold." The Company further disclosed that "total gross margin was 28.6%, a slight decrease of 27 basis points," and "the slight gross margin decrease was primarily from the reduced average selling price per new vehicle sold." The Company further disclosed it saw 2026 as a "consecutive year of Adjusted EBITDA growth, starting in the low $300 million range." Nonetheless, the Company purported that "this judicious conservatism, combined with our fortified balance sheet and improving leverage, has set the stage for our return to measured and accretive M&A activity across the business." On this news, the price of Camping World shares declined by $4.17 per share, or approximately 24.8%, from $16.82 per share on October 28, 2025 to close at $12.65 on October 29, 2025. On February 24, 2026 Camping World released its fourth quarter 2025 results, reporting, among other things, that it had "implemented strict, corrective inventory management objectives to structurally improve [its] turnover rates" creating gross margin headwinds into 2026. The Company reported financial results, including that "net loss was $(109.1) million for the fourth quarter of 2025, an increased loss of $49.6 million, or 83.3%," "adjusted EBITDA was $(26.2) million, an increased loss of $23.7 million," "gross profit was $338.2 million, a decrease of $38.7 million, or 10.3%, and total gross margin was 28.8%, a decrease of 247 basis points." The Company also reported "new vehicle gross margin was 12.3%, a decrease of 291 basis points," and "used vehicle gross margin was 16.0%, a decrease of 277 basis points," both due to an increase in the average cost per vehicle sold and a decrease in average selling price, "driven in part by accelerated sales of aged used vehicles in December." The Company additionally reported SG&A as a percentage of gross profit of 85%, a 190 basis point year over year improvement, falling far short of the Company's prior guidance for a 300 to 400 basis points improvement. Finally, the Company announced that it would be pausing its quarterly cash dividend, effective immediately, "following consideration of forecasted tax distributions, the reduced availability of excess tax distributions to fund dividend payments driven partly by the impact of recent tax law changes, and in consideration of the Company's focus on reducing net debt leverage." On this news, Camping World stock price declined by $1.79 per share, or approximately 16.5%, from $10.85 on February 24, 2026 to close at $9.06 per share on February 25, 2026. The Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process. The federal securities laws permit any investor who acquired eligible securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Courts typically appoint the investor(s) with the largest financial loss in the case and the ability to represent the class rather than investors with simply the largest investment portfolio. Courts regularly appoint individual investors, whether acting alone or as a group, as lead plaintiffs. The rights of any investor who bought shares during the class period are generally already protected. However, lead plaintiffs have the power to influence case strategy and have a say in settlement decisions, as well as decisions concerning allocation of settlement funds among class members. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired Camping World securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Lauren Molinaro, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP (212) 699-1171 https://www.kmllp.com https://securitiesleadplaintiff.com/ investigations@kmllp.com [GN] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action in Ill. Over Tariff Refunds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Baglole, writing for Tip Ranks, reports that Costco Wholesale (COST -0.56%) faces a class-action lawsuit from its customers in Illinois who are demanding a tariff refund after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down U.S. President Donald Trump's import duties. Costco is the first retailer to face a potential class-action lawsuit related to tariff refunds. A suit filed in Illinois federal court alleges that Costco owes its customers refunds in light of the Supreme Court's ruling against Trump's sweeping tariffs. The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a Costco member in the State of Illinois named Matthew Stockov and seeks class-action status, meaning it has the potential to grow into a larger lawsuit involving more Costco customers if certified by a judge. The class-action certification still needs to happen, but the lawsuit amounts to a big headache for Costco and possibly other retailers. Costco's Lawsuit Against the Trump Administration Costco itself is seeking a refund from the Trump administration over tariffs. In fact, Costco sued the administration last November in anticipation of the duties being struck down by the Supreme Court. Costco is seeking to block the tariffs and secure refunds on taxes it has paid to date. Costco isn't alone. More than 1,000 U.S. businesses have reportedly sought tariff refunds, a number that is expected to grow. An estimated $175 billion in collected tariffs that have been deemed illegal by the Supreme Court are now up for grabs. The refunds were expected to be a boon to retailers such as Costco. But they now might be forced to pass them onto customers or use them to settle class-action lawsuits. Is COST Stock a Buy? Costco's stock has a consensus Moderate Buy rating among 23 Wall Street analysts. That rating is based on 18 Buy, four Hold, and one Sell recommendations issued in the last three months. The average COST price target of $1,086.81 implies 8.76% upside from current levels. [GN] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Suit Seeks Refunds on Tariff Related Price Hikes ------------------------------------------------------------------ Global Trade Daily reports that a lawsuit has been filed against Costco Wholesale. The proposed nationwide class action seeks refunds for customers who paid higher prices due to import tariffs before a Supreme Court ruling. The complaint was filed in an Illinois federal court by a shopper. It requests a court declaration that the company must return to customers any tariff refunds it receives. These refunds would be for duties paid under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Supreme Court ruled on February 20 that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority by using the emergency powers law to impose sweeping tariffs last year. Following that decision, extensive litigation has been initiated at the U.S. Court of International Trade. Costco is among more than 2,000 companies suing to recover paid duties. A similar consumer class action has been filed against global shipper FedEx in a Florida federal court. The lawsuit against Costco aims to prevent the retailer from keeping both tariff refunds and the higher prices previously paid by consumers. The complaint alleges the company has not committed to returning any anticipated refunds to those customers. Costco's chief executive recently told analysts it remains uncertain if or when businesses will receive refunds for the tariffs. The executive stated that if refunds are received, the company plans to use them to lower prices and improve value for shoppers. The legal filing contends that this plan offers only a potential future benefit to an unspecified group of future customers. [GN] DREAM GAMES: Continues to Defend Washington Gambling Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Playtika Holding Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that Dream Games, the developer of mobile game “Royal Match,” continues to defend the Washington gambling laws and consumer protection laws violation class suit. In August 2024, a class action lawsuit was filed in the state of Washington against Dream Games, the developer of the mobile game "Royal Match" alleging that their game violates Washington State gambling laws and consumer protection laws. The case is currently proceeding in court. Dream Games is an emerging mobile game developer headquartered in Istanbul that specializes in developing casual puzzle games for smartphone and tablet users worldwide. DRIVEN BRANDS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Driven Brands Holdings Inc. ("Driven" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:DRVN) securities during the period of May 9, 2023 through February 24, 2026, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Driven investments, you have until May 8, 2026 to request lead plaintiff appointment. Courts do not consider lead plaintiff applications submitted after this deadline. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. For more information about the lawsuit: What Is This Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that the Company misled investors as to the its financial condition and the effectiveness of its internal controls over financial reporting through a series of inaccurate financial reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Among other errors, the Company's balance sheets contained an unreconciled cash balance originating in 2023 which resulted in revenue and cash being overstated in 2023 and 2024, and operating expenses being understated over the same period. On February 25, 2026, Driven announced it would be restating certain previously issued financial results after determining those reports contained material errors. On this news, the price of Driven shares declined by $5.01 per share, or approximately 30.2%, from $16.61 per share on February 24, 2026 to close at $11.60 on February 25, 2026. The Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process. The federal securities laws permit any investor who acquired eligible securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Courts typically appoint the investor(s) with the largest financial loss in the case and the ability to represent the class rather than investors with simply the largest investment portfolio. Courts regularly appoint individual investors, whether acting alone or as a group, as lead plaintiffs. The rights of any investor who bought shares during the class period are generally already protected. However, lead plaintiffs have the power to influence case strategy and have a say in settlement decisions, as well as decisions concerning allocation of settlement funds among class members. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired Driven securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Lauren Molinaro, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP (212) 699-1171 https://www.kmllp.com https://securitiesleadplaintiff.com/ investigations@kmllp.com [GN] FCA US LLC: Tanner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case is styled as Quintin Tanner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No. CU26-02041 (Cal. Super. Ct., CU26-01883 Cty., March 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Business Other Tort." FCA US LLC -- https://fcagroup-me.com/ -- designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Faces Local Union's Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Fresenius Medical Care AG disclosed in its Form 20-F report ending December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in February 24, 2026, that on May 9, 2025, a purported class action captioned “United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 and Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, et al. v. Fresenius Medical Care AG and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.” was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court of Colorado (C.A. No. 1:25-cv-01478) alleging violations of the U.S. antitrust laws including allegations of price fixing and territory allocation. Fresenius purportedly illegally carved up its sales areas in the U.S. to avoid competition. The company is into healthcare and allied services and is based in Bad Homburg, Germany. GOEASY LTD: SMK Law Investigates Possible Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ SMK Law P.C., a Canadian investor rights law firm is pursuing a lawsuit on behalf of investors of goeasy Ltd. (TSX: GSY). On March 10, 2026, goeasy announced an incremental charge-off of $178 million and a write-down of $55 million. The company also withdrew its guidance and stated that it would restate its results for 2024 and 2025. Over the following two trading days, the company's share price dropped approximately 63%. If you purchased goeasy shares and suffered a loss, and would like to learn more about the investigation or your eligibility, please contact SMK Law by email at info@smklawyers.ca or by filling out this contact form. About SMK Law P.C. SMK Law P.C. is a Canadian investor rights law firm representing institutional and individual investors. The firm is led by Soheil Karkhanechi who has decades of leadership experience in the securities and asset management industries in Canada and the US. Contacts Soheil Karkhanechi SMK Law P.C. (416) 551-7346 soheil@smklawyers.ca www.smklawyers.ca [GN] GRAMMARLY INC: Faces Class Action Over AI "Expert Review" Feature ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tech Buzz reports that Grammarly faces class action lawsuit over its AI 'Expert Review' feature that mimicked real authors and academics without consent, according to Wired The company shut down the controversial feature Wednesday, March 11, as the lawsuit was filed, ending the tool that presented AI-generated editing suggestions as coming from named experts The legal action escalates AI ethics concerns around consent and voice cloning in enterprise software, similar to recent controversies at other productivity platforms This lawsuit could establish legal boundaries for AI companies using real people's professional identities in commercial products Grammarly is fighting a class action lawsuit after its AI-powered 'Expert Review' feature impersonated established authors and academics without permission. The writing platform abruptly killed the feature Wednesday, March 11, the same day legal papers hit, marking a major escalation in the growing backlash over AI tools cloning real people's voices and expertise. The case could set precedent for how AI companies use personal likeness and professional identity in their products. Grammarly just became the latest AI company to face serious legal consequences for cloning real people without asking first. The writing assistant platform is now defending itself against a class action lawsuit challenging its 'Expert Review' feature, which presented AI-generated editing suggestions as if they came from established authors, professors, and writing experts -- all without getting their permission. The timing tells the story. Grammarly pulled the plug on Expert Review Wednesday, the exact day the lawsuit landed. That's not a coincidence. The feature had been live for months, offering users the chance to get feedback supposedly styled after recognized writing authorities. Except those authorities never agreed to have their names, reputations, or expertise borrowed by an algorithm. According to the complaint, Grammarly's AI essentially created synthetic versions of real professionals, training on their work to mimic their editorial voices and then attaching their identities to machine-generated suggestions. Users paid premium prices thinking they were getting insights shaped by actual human experts. Instead, they got AI approximations trading on borrowed credibility. This isn't just about hurt feelings or attribution disputes. The lawsuit argues Grammarly commercially exploited these individuals' professional reputations without compensation or consent. In the AI age, that's emerging as a crucial legal battleground. Your writing style, your analytical approach, your hard-earned expertise -- can a company just feed that into a model and sell it back to customers under your name? Grammarly hasn't issued a detailed public statement yet beyond confirming it discontinued the Expert Review feature. But the abrupt shutdown suggests the company recognized the legal exposure. The platform serves over 30 million daily users and counts major enterprises among its customers, making this a high-stakes fight that could influence how the entire productivity software industry approaches AI personalization. The class action format means this could expand well beyond the initial plaintiffs. Any author, academic, or writing professional whose identity Grammarly used without permission could potentially join. That's a lot of people -- the feature reportedly drew from dozens of recognizable names in publishing, journalism, and academia. This case joins a growing wave of legal challenges to AI training practices and synthetic content. Earlier controversies around voice cloning and AI-generated impersonations have mostly hit entertainment and media companies. But Grammarly's troubles show the risk has spread to enterprise SaaS, where businesses are racing to add AI features without necessarily clearing the rights to the human expertise those features imitate. The lawsuit's core argument is straightforward: you can't take someone's professional identity, run it through an AI model, and sell the output as if that person endorsed or created it. Grammarly's defense will likely hinge on whether AI-generated suggestions 'in the style of' someone constitutes impersonation or infringement -- a question courts are just starting to tackle. For Grammarly's competitors, this is a warning shot. Microsoft Editor, ProWritingAid, and other AI writing tools are all experimenting with personalized feedback features. How they attribute AI suggestions and what they promise users about expertise behind recommendations just became a lot more legally fraught. The case also highlights the consent gap in AI development. Companies have been relatively cavalier about scraping public content for training data, arguing it's transformative use. But when you attach a real person's name to AI output and charge money for it, the legal calculus changes. That's not just training on publicly available work -- it's commercial exploitation of individual identity. Grammarly built its reputation on helping people write better. The irony is that Expert Review might have actually delivered useful suggestions. But delivering value doesn't excuse appropriating someone's professional identity without permission. The plaintiffs aren't arguing the AI didn't work -- they're arguing Grammarly had no right to make it work using their names and reputations. What happens next could reshape AI product development across the enterprise software landscape. If the plaintiffs win or Grammarly settles for significant money, expect every SaaS company with AI features to audit how they're using real people's expertise, voices, or identities. The era of 'move fast and ask forgiveness later' might be ending, replaced by actual consent requirements before you turn someone into training data. Grammarly's legal trouble over Expert Review marks a critical moment for AI ethics in enterprise software. The lawsuit forces questions the industry has been dodging: Can companies monetize AI that impersonates real professionals without their consent? Where's the line between training on public data and commercial exploitation of individual identity? For writing tools, productivity platforms, and any AI product claiming expert-level performance, the answers will determine whether they can keep building features first and seeking permission never -- or whether the consent economy is finally arriving for artificial intelligence. Grammarly's next move in court will signal how seriously the company takes those questions, and how much the rest of the AI industry should worry. [GN] GRAY MEDIA: Continues to Defend Local TV Advertising Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Gray Media, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Company continues to defend itself from a Local TV Advertising class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In the wake of published reports concerning a Department of Justice investigation and settlement, multiple putative class action suits were filed against various television station owners. These cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation proceeding before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the title In re Local TV Advertising Litigation. The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the defendants' advertising sales teams participated in price-fixing and exchanged sensitive market information in violation of antitrust laws. Gray is named as a defendant only because it acquired Raycom and Meredith, entities that had previously been included in the lawsuits. The consolidated complaint seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest, as well as court orders preventing the defendants from implementing practices that the plaintiffs claim restrain competition. The company believes the allegations are without merit and continues to mount a strong defense against the claims. Gray Media, Inc., doing business as Gray Television, is an American publicly traded television broadcasting company based in Atlanta. GREG GOSSETT: Bid for New Trial Denied in "Ross" ------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Demetrius Ross, Kevin L. Hamilton, Ronald Smith, Jonathan Tolliver, and Glenn Verser, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Greg Gossett, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-00309-SMY (S.D. Ill.), Chief Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied Plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. Plaintiffs, current and former inmates of the Illinois Department of Corrections, brought this class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for violations of their constitutional rights. The Court certified a class of approximately 10,000 prisoners housed at Illinois River, Big Muddy River, Lawrence, and Menard correctional centers on three claims against 22 supervisory Defendants. The claims concerned facility-wide shakedowns that occurred during the period April 2014 through July 2014. The case proceeded to a jury trial commencing on March 31, 2025. Following two weeks of evidence, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all Defendants. Plaintiff then moved for a new trial against Defendants David White and Anthony McAllister under Federal Rule of Procedure 59, asserting the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Plaintiff argued the overwhelming evidence showed the shakedowns were conducted for the purpose of abusing and humiliating class members and not in furtherance of any legitimate penological goal. Plaintiff contended that White and McAllister made admissions during trial including: (1) prohibiting Plaintiff from wearing underwear during the shakedowns; (2) forcing Plaintiff to line up touching one another; (3) entering the housing units in an aggressive manner intended to intimidate Plaintiff; and (4) restraining Plaintiff's handcuffs for prolonged periods. White and McAllister defended their actions and denied that the purpose of the shakedowns was to harass and humiliate Plaintiff. Both testified that the line formations served penological interests. The defense also presented evidence showing inconsistencies with class members' testimony. That the jury credited Defendant's testimony rather than Plaintiff's was not unreasonable. After weighing all the evidence presented at trial, the Court found that no rational jury could have rendered the verdict. Accordingly, because the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, Plaintiff's motion for a new trial was denied. A copy of the Court's Order dated March 10, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jip0vd from PacerMonitor.com HIGH FIVE: Continues to Defend Social Casino-Themed Games Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Playtika Holding Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the High Five Games, a social casino-themed game firm, continues to defend itself from a social casino-theme games class suit in the federal court of Washington. In April 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in federal district court in Washington, alleging substantially the same causes of action against its social casino-themed games. In August 2020, it entered into a settlement agreement to settle this matter, which was approved by the court in February 2021. High Five Games, a social casino-themed game company that was also sued in federal district court for substantially the same causes of action, opted to continue litigation rather than settle following the Ninth Circuit's ruling. After several years of legal proceedings, in September 2024, a court ruled that two of High Five Games' slot-themed games constituted illegal gambling under Washington law. As a result, the company was ordered to pay $24.9 million in February 2025. In January 2025, the Washington State Gambling Commission (WSGC) issued a public memo referencing both the Ninth Circuit ruling and the High Five Games case. The memo warned that games of chance involving virtual currency are likely to be classified as illegal gambling under Washington law. It also encouraged companies offering virtual casino-style games to Washington residents to review their games and ensure compliance with state gambling regulations. High 5 Games develops casino entertainment products for both traditional casinos and digital gaming environments. HORMEL FOODS: Continues to Defend Turkey Antitrust Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Hormel Foods Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Turkey Antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Beginning in December 2019, a series of class action complaints were filed against the Company, as well as several other turkey-processing companies and a benchmarking service called Agri Stats, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois styled In re Turkey Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that from at least 2010 to 2017, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of turkey products, including through the use of Agri Stats, in violation of federal antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf of the classes of indirect purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Since the original filing, certain direct-action plaintiffs have opted out of class treatment and are proceeding with individual direct actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future. The defendants' motions for summary judgment were submitted in January 2026. The Company has not recorded any liability relating to these assessments and cannot reasonably estimate any reasonably possible loss at this time. Hormel is a global manufacturer and marketer of branded food products with three reportable segments: retail, foodservice, and international. IDEAL IMAGE: Agrees to $3.5MM Web Tracking Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Ideal Image Development Corp. has agreed to pay $3.5 million as part of a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it used Meta Pixel to collect and share sensitive consumer data without consent. The Ideal Image settlement benefits individuals who used idealimage.com to schedule a consultation for services between Jan. 1, 2023, and Jan. 26, 2026. According to the web tracking class action lawsuit, Ideal Image used Meta Pixel on its website to collect sensitive information from consumers who visited the site to schedule consultations. The company allegedly failed to inform consumers that their information would be shared with Meta Platforms Inc. -- the parent company of Facebook and Instagram -- and did not get consent from consumers to share their information with Meta. Ideal Image is a laser hair removal and cosmetic treatment company with locations across the country. The company announced its closure in December 2025. Ideal Image has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Ideal Image settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Class members who submit a valid claim will receive a cash payment of up to $17. Payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. Ideal Image has also agreed to suspend its collection of sensitive information from consumers through web tracking. This policy change will help protect consumer privacy going forward. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 27, 2026. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for June 17, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by April 27, 2026. Who's Eligible All consumers who used idealimage.com to schedule a consultation for services from Jan. 1, 2023, to Jan. 26, 2026. Potential Award $17 Proof of Purchase Claimants must affirm they have or had an account with Meta during the class period. 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 04/27/2026 Case Name Minano v. Ideal Image Development Corp., Case No. 25-CA-011075, in the Circuit Court for the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida Final Hearing 06/17/2026 Settlement Website IdealImageSettlement.com Claims Administrator Gayle Minano v. Ideal Image Development Corporation P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 info@bursor.com (833) 319-5886 Class Counsel Sarah N. Westcot Alec Leslie BURSOR & FISHER P.A. Defense Counsel Angelo A. Stio III TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP [GN] IMPERIAL BEACH: Maldonado Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Cynthia Maldonado, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Imperial Beach Community Clinic, Case No. 26CU001879N was removed from Superior Court of California, San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on March 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01312-W-JLB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Imperial Beach Clinic -- https://www.ibclinic.org/ -- is a family-friendly health care organization serving San Diego's South Bay since 1971.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eden Zakay, Esq. Jackland K. Hom, Esq. Jaclyn M Joyce, Esq. Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. Shani O. Zakay, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5440 Morehouse Dr., Suite 3600 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (619) 255-9047 Email: eden@zakaylaw.com jackland@zakaylaw.com jaclyn@zakaylaw.com jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com shani@zakaylaw.com IMPERIAL BEACH: Ramirez Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mark Jesse Ramirez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Imperial Beach Community Clinic, Case No. 26CU001197C was removed from Superior Court of California, San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on March 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01326-JES-JLB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Imperial Beach Clinic -- https://www.ibclinic.org/ -- is a family-friendly health care organization serving San Diego's South Bay since 1971.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eden Zakay, Esq. Jackland K. Hom, Esq. Jaclyn M Joyce, Esq. Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. Shani O. Zakay, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5440 Morehouse Dr., Suite 3600 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (619) 255-9047 Email: eden@zakaylaw.com jackland@zakaylaw.com jaclyn@zakaylaw.com jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com shani@zakaylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Dennis N. Lueck, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 3065 Center Green Drive, 2nd Floor Boulder, CO 80301 Phone: (267) 230-3959 Email: dlueck@mullen.law INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE: Settles Underinsured Motorist Suit for $4M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club, also known as AAA, agreed to a $4.15 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming it reduced underinsured motorist claims by the amount paid by the at-fault driver. The AAA settlement benefits consumers who had an underinsured motorist claim with AAA reduced or offset by the amount paid by the at-fault driver between Jan. 1, 2010, and May 4, 2022, or who purchased a New Mexico automobile insurance policy containing uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage between Jan. 1, 2010, and May 4, 2022. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim that AAA wrongfully reduced underinsured motorist claims by the amount paid by the at-fault driver. This practice allegedly violated New Mexico law. AAA is an insurance company that offers various types of coverage, including auto insurance. AAA has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $4.15 million to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the AAA insurance settlement, class members who had an underinsured motorist claim offset by the amount paid by the at-fault driver can receive a payment of up to $25,000. These payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. Class members who purchased uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage during the class period can receive a partial premium refund. Refund amounts will vary depending on the amount class members paid in UM/UIM premiums, the cost of administering the settlement, the amount set aside for offset claim payments and other factors. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 30, 2026. The final approval hearing for the AAA settlement is scheduled on or after May 13, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by April 29, 2026. Who's Eligible Those who purchased a New Mexico automobile insurance policy containing UM/UIM motorist coverage between Jan. 1, 2010, and May 4, 2022, or those who had an underinsured motorist claim reduced or "offset" by the amount paid by the at-fault driver in an accident between Jan. 1, 2010, and May 4, 2022. Potential Award Up to $25,000 or a partial premium refund Proof of Purchase AAA policy number and/or claim number 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 04/29/2026 Case Name Smith v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club, Case No. 1:22-cv-00447-WJ-JMR, in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico Final Hearing 05/13/2026 Settlement Website AAAUIMSettlement.com Claims Administrator Smith v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 5339 Portland, OR 97208-5339 info@AAAUIMSettlement.com (877) 268-1879 Class Counsel Kedar Bhasker KEDAR BHASKER Geoffrey Romero ROMERO, HARADA, & WINTERS LLC Corbin Hildebrandt CORBIN HILDEBRANDT P.C. Andrea Harris VALLE, O'CLEIREACHAIN, ZAMORA & HARRIS Defense Counsel Rodger L. Eckelberry Kevin P. Zimmerman Michael E. Mumford BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Meena H. Allen ALLEN LAW FIRM LLC [GN] IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in February 24, 2026, that it is facing a consolidated case captioned “In re Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation,” No. 25-cv-04177. On May 15, 2025, a putative securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned “Farberov v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., et al.,” (No. 25-cv-04199) on behalf of persons or entities who acquired the Company s common stock between May 9, 2024 and May 8, 2025. Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's expected revenue for fiscal year 2025, which the plaintiffs claim artificially inflated the price of its common stock. The actions seek compensatory damages and costs and expenses incurred in the actions, including attorneys' fees. On December 15, 2025, the court consolidated this with another class action and is now captioned “In re Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation,” No. 25-cv-04177, and appointed lead plaintiff and plaintiffs counsel. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company into innovating, developing, and delivering tumor infiltrating lymphocyte, or TIL, cell therapies for patients with solid tumor cancers. J. R. SIMPLOT COMPANY: Westbrook Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volumetric Building Companies, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Peter Westbrook, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. J. R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, J. R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, LLC, Does 1-25, Case No. 26CV004992 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." J. R. Simplot Company -- https://www.simplot.com/ -- is an agribusiness company headquartered in Boise, Idaho.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan T. Chuman, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Email: rchuman@blackstonelawpc.com KRISTI NOEM: Court Stays Somalia TPS Termination Pending Review --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as African Communities Together, Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans, Alexander Doe, Mohamed Doe, Tyson Doe, and Nina Doe, on behalf of themselves and all 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. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and United States of America, Defendants, Civil Action No. 26-cv-11201-ADB (D. Mass.), Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted in part Plaintiffs' emergency motion, staying the March 17, 2026, effective date of the termination of Somalia's Temporary Protected Status designation. On January 14, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security published a notice that Secretary Noem had concluded that Somalia no longer continues to meet the conditions for designation for Temporary Protected Status pursuant to Section 1254a, and that Somalia's designation would be terminated following its expiration on March 17, 2026. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on March 9, 2026, challenging the termination pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution. Plaintiffs averred that if Somalia's designation is allowed to terminate, over one thousand people will face a myriad of grave risks, including detention and deportation, physical violence if removed to Somalia, and forced separation from family members. As of the entry of the order, Defendant had not appeared in the action, produced the certified administrative record, or filed a brief setting forth its position on Plaintiffs' emergency motion. The Court concluded that the relative consequences favor an administrative stay to permit Defendant to produce the certified administrative record and the parties to brief the issues presented. Accordingly, the March 17, 2026, effective date of the termination is stayed subject to further order of the Court. While the stay is in effect, the termination is null, void, and of no legal effect. Individuals with TPS status based on Somalia's designation shall retain all rights and protections, including eligibility for work authorization and protection against deportation and detention. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve a copy of the order on Defendant by 5:00 p.m. EDT on March 16, 2026. The parties are instructed to confer to establish a briefing schedule and file it with the Court by no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on March 18, 2026. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated March 13, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0a6hfq from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Kristi L. Noem Defendant U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff AFRICAN COMMUNITIES TOGETHER Represented By Nargis Aslami Muslim Advocates 202-897-1895 nargis@muslimadvocates.org Plaintiff ALEXANDER DOE Represented By Nargis Aslami Muslim Advocates 202-897-1895 nargis@muslimadvocates.org Plaintiff MOHAMED DOE Represented By Nargis Aslami Muslim Advocates 202-897-1895 nargis@muslimadvocates.org Plaintiff NINA DOE Represented By Nargis Aslami Muslim Advocates 202-897-1895 nargis@muslimadvocates.org Plaintiff TYSON DOE Represented By Nargis Aslami Muslim Advocates 202-897-1895 nargis@muslimadvocates.org Plaintiff PARTNERSHIP FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF NEW AMERICANS Represented By Nargis Aslami Muslim Advocates 202-897-1895 nargis@muslimadvocates.org LENOVO UNITED: Sued Over Sharing US Consumers' Data With China -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a Lenovo consumer filed a class action lawsuit against the company. Why: The plaintiff alleges Lenovo (United States) Inc. shared U.S. consumers' data with China. Where: The Lenovo class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Lenovo of violating federal law by sharing U.S. consumers' data with China. Plaintiff Spencer Christy filed the class action complaint against Lenovo (United States) Inc. on Feb. 5 in California federal court, alleging violations of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act and California's Invasion of Privacy Act and Unfair Competition Law. The class action lawsuit alleges Lenovo violated a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) rule that prohibits the transfer of Americans' bulk sensitive personal data to "countries of concern," including China. The rule, implemented in April 2025, aims to prevent foreign adversaries from accessing large quantities of behavioral data that could be used to surveil, analyze or exploit American citizens, the Lenovo class action lawsuit alleges. Christy claims Lenovo "knowingly and systematically" used communications and associated covered personal identifiers intercepted from American citizens for the purpose of sharing U.S. consumers' data with covered persons without the safeguards required by U.S. law. Lawsuit: Lenovo shared U.S. consumers' data with China The Lenovo class action lawsuit alleges that when Christy visited Lenovo's website to browse for products and purchase a gaming computer, the company facilitated the interception and disclosure of the full-page context, including full-string URLs revealing the pages viewed and product view, and persistent identifiers, including IP addresses, advertising IDs and cookie data, to third parties. Christy claims Lenovo then used the intercepted communications and identifiers for its own purposes, including transmitting them to covered persons in violation of the DOJ rule. The Lenovo class action lawsuit argues that the company's actions enabled it and its foreign parents to link Christy's browsing activity to his identity, track his behavior and build detailed profiles reflecting his interests, location, habits and other private attributes. Christy alleges the conduct gives rise to numerous individual and representative claims under federal and state law, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, because Lenovo used consumers' intercepted communications with the intention and for the purpose of disclosing that data in furtherance of a criminal or tortious act. Christy wants to represent anyone in the United States whose electronic communications with Lenovo's website were intercepted and whose communications and personal data, including persistent identifiers and behavioral activity, was used on or after April 8, 2025. He is suing for violations of federal and state privacy laws and seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Earlier, Fandom Inc. agreed to pay $1.2 million to resolve claims it violated California privacy laws by installing trackers on GameSpot visitors' browsers without their consent. The plaintiff is represented by Victor J. Sandoval of Almeida Law Group LLC. The Lenovo data privacy class action lawsuit is Christy v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01133, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] MARINUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Trims Claims in "Bishins" -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Scott Bishins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-2430 (E.D. Pa.), Judge John R. Padova of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Upon consideration of the motion and the hearing held on September 30, 2025, the court found that the following statements, alleged in the Amended Complaint to be fraudulent and material, are immunized by the safe harbor provision of the PSLRA. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims are dismissed to the extent they rely on: (a) Braunstein's November 7, 2023, press release statement that Marinus is committed to successfully completing both the RAISE and TrustTSC trials in 2024; (b) Braunstein's November 7, 2023, conference call statement regarding the appropriate resources required to complete two key data readouts; (c) the January 4, 2024, press release statement that Defendants expected the Company's cash position to fund operating expenses and maintain the minimum cash balance into the fourth quarter of 2024; (d) Braunstein's January 4, 2024, press release statement that the Company expected 2024 to be another pivotal year for Marinus, with two Phase 3 data readouts anticipated; (e) Hulihan's March 5, 2024, conference call statement that Defendants continued to expect to report top line results in the second quarter of 2024; and (f) Hulihan's November 7, 2023, conference call statements regarding plans to transition RAISE sites to open-label enrollment and enroll the first patients in RAISE II prior to the end of the year. The court denied the motion in all other respects A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kyQFAE from PacerMonitor.com Defendant SCOTT BRAUSTEIN Represented By ELIZABETH M. WRIGHT Cooley LLP ewright@cooley.com KOJI F. FUKUMURA Cooley Llp - Library 858-550-6000 kfukumura@cooley.com CAITLIN BRIDGET MUNLEY Cooley LLP 202-776-2557 cmunley@cooley.com RONAN A. NELSON Cooley LLP 858-550-6160 rnelson@cooley.com CRAIG E. TENBROECK Cooley LLP 858-550-6000 ctenbroeck@cooley.com Defendant MARINUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Represented By ELIZABETH M. WRIGHT Cooley LLP ewright@cooley.com KOJI F. FUKUMURA Cooley Llp - Library 858-550-6000 kfukumura@cooley.com CAITLIN BRIDGET MUNLEY Cooley LLP 202-776-2557 cmunley@cooley.com RONAN A. NELSON Cooley LLP 858-550-6160 rnelson@cooley.com CRAIG E. TENBROECK Cooley LLP 858-550-6000 ctenbroeck@cooley.com Defendant STEVEN PFANSTIEL Represented By ELIZABETH M. WRIGHT Cooley LLP ewright@cooley.com KOJI F. FUKUMURA Cooley Llp - Library 858-550-6000 kfukumura@cooley.com CAITLIN BRIDGET MUNLEY Cooley LLP 202-776-2557 cmunley@cooley.com RONAN A. NELSON Cooley LLP 858-550-6160 rnelson@cooley.com CRAIG E. TENBROECK Cooley LLP 858-550-6000 ctenbroeck@cooley.com Defendant JOSEPH HULIHAN Represented By ELIZABETH M. WRIGHT Cooley LLP ewright@cooley.com KOJI F. FUKUMURA Cooley Llp - Library 858-550-6000 kfukumura@cooley.com CAITLIN BRIDGET MUNLEY Cooley LLP 202-776-2557 cmunley@cooley.com RONAN A. NELSON Cooley LLP 858-550-6160 rnelson@cooley.com CRAIG E. TENBROECK Cooley LLP 858-550-6000 ctenbroeck@cooley.com Plaintiff SCOTT BISHINS Represented By JACOB A. GOLDBERG The Rosen Law Firm 215-600-2817 jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com MDL 3173: Court Denies Consolidation of 9 DTS Cases in N.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district action captioned "In Re: Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC Litigation," MDL No. 3173, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denied the transfer of four cases from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, two from the District of Connecticut and one each from the District of Maryland, the Northern District of New York and the District of South Carolina for centralization in the Northern District of New York. These actions arise from DTS Property's unsuccessful attempt in early 2022 to sell a residential property in Easton, Connecticut to the Pupovics. The actions fall into two categories. The parties in seven of the actions ("the Pupovic actions") are Diamond Tucker St. Property, Redemption, Westfair, or Sean Fillinich and the Pupovics. The other two actions ("the Watson actions") were brought by movants against the Watson defendants, who served as DTS Property’s counsel with respect to the sale of the Easton property. There is unquestionably extensive factual overlap among the actions in each category. All seven Pupovic actions pertain to a 2024 Connecticut state court default judgment and judgment lien obtained by the Pupovics against DTS Property relating to the unconsummated sale of the Easton property. DTS Property alleges in each action that the default judgment was fraudulently or improperly obtained and now is unfairly preventing DTS Property from selling the Easton property. The panel rules that despite the commonalities among the actions, centralization is not warranted because the actions share overlapping questions of fact and have multidistrict character only because movants had deliberately filed duplicative actions in multiple districts; that the factual issues in said actions seem straightforward, and discovery is not likely to be time-consuming or complex; and that there are relatively few actions, nearly all involve the same parties, and those parties are represented by the same counsel in all actions. A full-text copy of the court's February 4, 2026 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3173-Order_Denying_Transfer-1-26.pdf MDL 3174: 7 Muan Air Crash Incident Cases Consolidated in W.D. Wash ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Air Crash at Muan International Airport, South Korea on December 29, 2024," MDL No. 3174, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, consolidates three cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, three from the Eastern District of Virginia and one from the Western District of Washington, all to the Western District of Washington and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge James L. Robart, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Defendant The Boeing Company moved to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois or, alternatively, Western District of Washington. Plaintiffs support centralization in either the Eastern District of Virginia or the Western District of Washington. These actions share factual questions arising from the crash landing of Jeju Air Flight 7C2216 at Muan International Airport in South Korea on December 29, 2024. Plaintiffs in each action assert wrongful death and survival claims against Boeing, the manufacturer of the accident aircraft. The Western District of Washington is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation as the accident aircraft was manufactured in this district, and many of the witnesses relevant to this litigation, including Boeing employees involved in the crash investigation, are located in Washington. All parties support centralization in this district, either in the first instance or in the alternative. The Western District of Washington presents a convenient forum for this litigation, which will involve witnesses and plaintiffs from South Korea. A full-text copy of the court's February 5, 2026 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3174-Transfer_Order-1-26.pdf MDL 3175: 6 Cases Consolidated in Shell Eggs Antitrust Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Shell Eggs Antitrust Litigation," MDL No. 3175, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton , Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, consolidates three cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, two from the Southern District of Indiana and one from the Western District of Wisconsin, all to the Western District of Wisconsin and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge James D. Peterson, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. All responding parties agree that centralization is appropriate but differ as to the proposed transferee district. These actions sharing factual questions arising from allegations that defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of shell eggs in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiffs allege that defendants exploited an Avian Flu outbreak and manipulated benchmark prices set by defendant Urner Barry. Three actions on the motion are brought on behalf of overlapping nationwide classes of direct purchasers of shell eggs, and the remaining three actions are brought on behalf of different classes of indirect purchasers. Centralization should eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary, rules the panel. The Western District of Wisconsin is the most appropriate transferee district for this litigation as two actions are pending in the Western District of Wisconsin, and defendant Daybreak Foods is headquartered there, adds the panel. A full-text copy of the court's February 10, 2026 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3175-Transfer_Order-1-26.pdf METROWEST CREDIT: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the MetroWest Credit Union 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 MetroWest Credit Union data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. MetroWest Credit Union Security Incident: What Happened? MetroWest Community Federal Credit Union has disclosed a data breach that, according to a report submitted to the Maine Attorney General's Office, impacted 20,722 individuals. A sample notice states that on September 1, 2025, MetroWest noticed suspicious activity on its network. With the help of third-party forensic specialists, MetroWest discovered that unauthorized access and file copying occurred on September 3. The investigation revealed that the information compromised in the MetroWest Community Federal Credit Union data breach included names, addresses, financial account and payment card numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and taxpayer IDs. MetroWest has mailed notification letters to those affected and posted details about the data breach on its website for those impacted for whom MetroWest did not have addresses. MetroWest, which is based in Framingham, Mass., plans to merge with St. Mary's Credit Union of Marlborough, Mass. The merged entity will retain the St. Mary's Credit Union name. What You Can Do After the MetroWest Credit Union Data Breach If your information was exposed in the MetroWest Credit Union 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 MetroWest Credit Union to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] MONDAY.COM LTD: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against monday.com Ltd. ("monday.com") (NASDAQ: MNDY). The lawsuit alleges that defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding monday.com's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (i) defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to monday.com's projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth on the back of its continued expansion of its core platform, AI-driven investments, increasing enterprise adoption and multi-product integration; (ii) monday.com was seeing new customer growth decelerating, weaker expansion within existing accounts and longer enterprise sales cycles, making monday.com's $1.8 billion 2027 target increasingly unlikely to be met; and (iii) defendants misled investors by providing the public with materially flawed statements of confidence and growth projections which did not account for these variables. If you purchased monday.com shares between September 17, 2025 and February 6, 2026, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/monday-com/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is May 11, 2026. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] MONSANTO COMPANY: Howell Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Howell, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-002 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 1, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Lowe Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ira Lowe, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-005 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 1, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Settles Motorist Claims Class Suit for $2.65MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Nationwide agreed to a $2.65 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve allegations it reduced underinsured motorist claims by the amount paid by at-fault drivers. The Nationwide settlement benefits consumers who had an underinsured motorist claim with Nationwide reduced or "offset" by the amount paid by the at-fault driver between Oct. 1, 2010, and March 31, 2022, and those who purchased a New Mexico automobile insurance policy containing uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage between Oct. 1, 2010, and March 31, 2022. Nationwide allegedly violated New Mexico law by failing to properly advise consumers that underinsured motorist claims would be reduced by the amount paid by at-fault drivers' insurance. As a result, consumers were allegedly surprised when their own underinsured motorist claims were reduced by the amount paid by the at-fault driver's insurance. Nationwide is an insurance company that offers a variety of insurance products, including automobile insurance. Nationwide has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.65 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Nationwide settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Class members who had an underinsured motorist claim reduced or offset by the amount paid by the at-fault driver can receive a payment of up to $25,000. The settlement allocates $890,000 for these payments. If the number of valid claims exceeds this amount, payments will be reduced on a pro rata basis. Class members who purchased uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage between Oct. 1, 2010, and March 31, 2022, can receive a partial premium refund. Refund amounts will vary depending on the amount paid in premiums during the class period. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 28, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Nationwide settlement has not yet been scheduled. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 30, 2026. Who's Eligible Those who had an underinsured motorist claim reduced or "offset" by the amount paid by the at-fault driver in an accident between Oct. 1, 2010, and March 31, 2022, or those who purchased a New Mexico automobile insurance policy containing UM/UIM motorist coverage between Oct. 1, 2010, and March 31, 2022. Potential Award Up to $25,000 or partial premium refund Proof of Purchase Those who submit a claim form must provide the claim number for the underinsured motorist claim and the date of the accident. 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 03/30/2026 Case Name Lucero v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 19-cv-00311-WJ-JMR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico Final Hearing TBD Settlement Website LuceroUIMSettlement.com Claims Administrator Lucero v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, et al. c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 5358 Portland, OR 97208-5358 info@LuceroUIMSettlement.com (877) 269-4987 Class Counsel Kedar Bhasker LAW OFFICE OF KEDAR BHASKER LLC Geoffrey Romero ROMERO, HARADA & WINTERS LLC Corbin Hildebrandt CORBIN HILDEBRANDT P.C. Defense Counsel Rodger L. Eckelberry BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN] NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Nektar Therapeutics (NASDAQ: NKTR) between February 26, 2025 and December 15, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 5, 2026. SO WHAT: If you purchased Nektar securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Nektar class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=55599 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 5, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) enrollment in the REZOLVE-AA trial had not followed applicable instructions and protocol standards; (2) the foregoing was likely to have a significant negative impact on the REZOLVE-AA trial's results; (3) accordingly, the REZOLVE-AA trial's overall integrity and prospects were overstated; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Nektar class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=55599 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: case@rosenlegal.com Web: www.rosenlegal.com [GN] NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: $11.5MM Settlement Final Hearing Set Aug. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Nutramax has agreed to an $11,500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that claimed the supplement company misrepresented the benefits and efficacy of its Cosequin-branded dog supplements in advertisements and on product packaging. The $11.5 million Nutramax class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 2, 2026 and covers all individuals residing in California who purchased any of the following Cosequin canine products for personal use between May 3, 2016 and May 6, 2022: -- Cosequin DS Maximum Strength Chewable Tablets; -- Cosequin DS Maximum Strength Plus MSM Chewable Tablets; -- Cosequin Maximum Strength Plus MSM Chewable Tablets; -- Cosequin with MSM Chewable Tablets; -- Cosequin Maximum Strength Plus MSM Soft Chews; -- Cosequin with MSM Soft Chews; and -- Cosequin DS Maximum Strength Plus MSM Soft Chews. The court-approved website for the Cosequin class action settlement can be found at CosequinCASettlement.com. According to the website, Cosequin settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive up to $25 per Cosequin product purchased for up to six products, for a maximum payout of up to $150. Importantly, the settlement agreement reports that payments will be issued per household, not per class member. The settlement agreement outlines that if the total value of all valid claims exceeds the amount remaining in the net settlement fund after payment of attorneys' fees and lead plaintiff service awards, payments to class members may be subject to a pro-rated reduction. The agreement additionally notes that any money left over after payments to class members have been sent will be distributed as a cypres award to Valor Service Dogs. Class members can receive their payout via check or electronic payment; the agreement adds that all checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance before expiration. To file a Cosequin settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and fill out all required fields with relevant information. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF claim form from the settlement site to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed on the first page of the document. All Cosequin settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by July 21, 2026. Finally, as part of the settlement, Nutramax has agreed to remove the following statements from any future Cosequin packaging: "Mobility, Cartilage and Joint Health Support," "Supports Mobility for a Healthy Lifestyle," and "Use Cosequin to help your pet [c]limb stairs, [r]ise and [j]ump!" The agreement notes that Nutramax, however, may continue to plainly use the statement "Joint Health Supplement" on Cosequin products. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Nutramax settlement following a hearing on August 13, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Nutramax class action lawsuit claimed that the supplement company misleadingly and falsely advertised certain claims about its Cosequin canine supplements -- including enhanced joint flexibility, mobility and restored joint health -- that they were allegedly incapable of providing in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and a host of state-specific consumer protection laws. [GN] ODDITY TECH: Faces Class Action Over Securities Laws' Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against ODDITY Tech Ltd. ("Oddity" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ODD) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 26-cv-02046, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Oddity securities between February 26, 2025 and February 24, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Oddity securities during the Class Period, you have until May 11, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Oddity is a consumer technology company that builds digital-first brands for the beauty and wellness industries in the U.S. and internationally. The Company serves consumers through its purported artificial intelligence-driven online platform, using data science, machine learning, and computer vision capabilities to identify consumer needs and develop solutions in the form of beauty, wellness, and technology products. Oddity relies heavily on advertising partners to support its sales growth. As such, the Company's revenue and customer acquisition costs are directly impacted by its advertising partners' algorithms, which utilize user behavior, demographic, and interest-related data to facilitate the Company's exposure to online advertising spaces via auctions and, accordingly, online consumer traffic. The quality of a company's ad auction generally correlates favorably with a company's customer acquisition costs. A high-quality ad auction will generally result in potential customers seeing more relevant, engaging and prominently placed ads, resulting in lower costs per click ("CPC") and higher click-through ("CT") rates. Conversely, lower-quality ad auctions will yield less relevant and poorly placed ads, leading to higher CPC and lower CT rates. As such, higher-quality ad auctions tend to result in lower customer acquisition costs, whereas lower-quality ad auctions tend to increase customer acquisition costs. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) due to an algorithm change by Oddity's largest advertising partner, Oddity's advertisements were being diverted to lower quality auctions at abnormally high costs; (ii) the foregoing significantly increased Oddity's customer acquisition costs, thereby negatively impacting Oddity's business and financial prospects; (iii) accordingly, Defendants overstated the overall strength, stability, and sustainability of Oddity's digital operating model and/or market position; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The truth began to emerge on February 25, 2026, when Oddity issued a press release "announc[ing] its financial results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2025." In the press release, Oddity's Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Oran Holtzman, said that "we experienced a dislocation in our account with our largest advertising partner that we believe was driven by algorithm changes which diverted us to lower quality auctions at abnormally high costs", which "result[ed] in significant increases in new user acquisition costs that are not correlated with the market or our historical experience." In the same press release, Oddity's Global Chief Financial Officer, Defendant Lindsay Drucker Mann, said that: Given the dislocation we are experiencing in acquisition costs, we expect first quarter 2026 revenue to decline approximately 30% year-over-year, but we hope to see material improvement in the second half of 2026. We plan to issue our financial outlook for FY 2026 in the next few months when we have more visibility. On this news, Oddity's Class A ordinary share price fell $14.28 per share, or 49.21%, to close at $14.74 per share on February 25, 2026. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton, Esq. Pomerantz LLP (646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 dpeyton@pomlaw.com [GN] ORTHOCINCY ORTHOPAEDICS: W.W. Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against OrthoCincy Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, P.S.C. The case is styled as W.W., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OrthoCincy Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, P.S.C., Case No. 2:26-cv-00101-SCM (E.D. Ky., March 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. OrthoCincy -- https://www.orthocincy.com/ -- is the largest independent orthopedic practice in the Cincinnati Tri-State with 14 locations in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex Honneycut, Esq. Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. Kevin M. Cox, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 766-9011 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com PHH MORTGAGE: $1.5MM Settlement Ends Notice Letters Class Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that PHH Mortgage Corporation has agreed to a $1,500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that claimed the mortgage lender sent borrowers notice of default letters supposedly containing false threats of loan acceleration and foreclosure in violation of federal and state debt collection practice laws. The PHH Mortgage Corporation class action settlement received preliminary court approval on February 4, 2026 and outlines that PHH will pay $500,000 into three distinct lump sum settlement funds that cover three corresponding classes of borrowers: --All borrowers on residential mortgage loans secured by mortgaged property in the United States whose loans were serviced by PHH, where PHH acquired the servicing rights when the loans were 30 or more days delinquent on payment obligations, and who, per PHH's own records, were sent one or more Notices of Default between December 18, 2022 and December 15, 2025 (the "Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Class"); --All borrowers on residential mortgage loans secured by mortgaged property in California whose loans were serviced by PHH, where PHH acquired the servicing rights when the loans were 30 or more days delinquent on payment obligations, and who, per PHH's own records, were sent one or more Notices of Default between December 18, 2022 and December 15, 2025 (the "California Class") --All borrowers on residential mortgage loans secured by mortgaged property in North Carolina whose loans were serviced by PHH, where PHH acquired the servicing rights when the loans were 30 or more days delinquent on payment obligations, and who, per PHH's own records, were sent one or more Notices of Default between January 14, 2021 and December 15, 2025 (the "North Carolina Class"). The settlement agreement reports that nearly 96,000 current and former homeowners are covered by the $1.5 million total deal. The court-approved website for the PHH Mortgage settlement can be found at WilliamsPHHSettlement.com. According to the agreement, PHH settlement class members do not need to do anything to receive payment from the applicable loan class fund(s) after the payment of all attorneys' fees, lead plaintiff service awards and any administration costs exceeding the $200,000 that PHH has agreed to pay separately from the settlement fund. The settlement website reports that the final amount of each class member's individual allocation will depend on the cost of the aforementioned expenses and a number of class--member specific factors, including how behind they were on their loan at the time PHH began serving it, if their Notice of Default was sent in the relevant time period and the number of class members who ask to be excluded from the deal The settlement website notes that PHH Mortgage class members with loan(s) that meet more than one class loan definition will receive a monetary payment from each applicable settlement fund. Cash payments will be distributed via check to the class member's last known mailing address, the site reports, and class members whose mailing address has changed since January 14, 2021 may update their address here. Additionally, the settlement site states that class members who prefer to receive their cash payment electronically may submit a request here. To make any changes to their settlement payment distribution, class members will need to provide the settlement claim ID found on their received copy of the settlement notice in order to confirm their identity. Class members who wish to object to or exclude themselves from the settlement must send a written notice to the settlement administrator stating their name, contact details and a statement explaining their decision, along with other information as explained in the settlement notice. All exclusion requests and objections to the settlement must be submitted by May 5, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the PHH Mortgage settlement final approval following a hearing on June 9, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The PHH Mortgage class action lawsuit claimed that the mortgage lender sent borrowers notices of default stating that their mortgage loan may be accelerated or foreclosed upon if they failed to cure the overdue amount by a certain date. The filing alleged that these letters contained false statements that PHH could not legally enforce intended to intimidate consumers into making immediate payments in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. [GN] QANTAS AIRWAYS: Agrees to $74MM Settlement in COVID Flight Credits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Australia's Qantas Airways (QAN.AX) said on Friday, March 6, it has agreed to settle a class action related to flight credits issued during the COVID-19 pandemic for A$105 million ($74.26 million), with no admission of liability. Here are some details: -- The settlement, subject to approval by the Federal Court of Australia, relates to flights scheduled to depart between January 2020 and November 2022 but were ⁠cancelled by the airline. -- The settlement is higher than the A$55 million provision that Qantas Airways mentioned in its latest half-year results in February for the flight credits class action. -- Australia's flag carrier said any additional settlement-related charge would be recognised outside underlying earnings in the second half of fiscal 2026, which would have an impact on net earnings. -- Echo Law, which ⁠brought the class action on behalf of affected customers, said on its website, opens new tab that the parties had agreed to settle the case. -- The lawsuit, filed in August 2023, included allegations that Qantas breached contractual ⁠obligations by failing to provide refunds for cancelled flights during the pandemic. -- In August 2023, Qantas removed the expiry date on flight credits ⁠issued during the pandemic, allowing customers to request a cash refund indefinitely. -- The airline said the settlement amount would be ⁠paid to a court-approved administrator, with payment currently expected in the first half of fiscal 2027. ($1 = 1.4140 Australian dollars) [GN] TARGET CORPORATION: "Buckmaster" Settlement Has Prelim Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as JASMINE BUCKMASTER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-05375-MLP (W.D. Wash.), Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted Plaintiff's motion for conditional settlement class certification and preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court certified the following Settlement Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3): all current and former non-exempt Target employees who performed work in the state of Washington from April 3, 2022 through the date the Court grants preliminary approval or May 21, 2026, whichever is earlier. The Court appointed Jasmine Buckmaster as Class Representative and James B. Pizl and Entente Law PLLC as Class Counsel. Upon review of the Settlement Agreement, the Court concluded that the proposed settlement appears fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, the Court ordered as follows: Simpluris, appointed as Settlement Administrator, is directed to mail notice to each Settlement Class Member no later than 45 days following the date of the order. Settlement Class Members have 45 days after the Initial Mailing Date to request exclusion. The Court approved Simpluris's fees and costs not to exceed $120,000 from the Common Settlement Fund. The Court further approved notifying the Settlement Class of Plaintiff's request for $412,500 in attorneys' fees plus approximately $10,000 in litigation costs, and a $20,000 incentive Service and Full Release Award to the Class Representative, both subject to final approval. The Final Fairness Hearing is scheduled for July 10, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Court's Order dated March 13 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wnD6Qg from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Target Corporation Represented By Heather L Shook Perkins Coie (sea) 206-359-8154 hshook@perkinscoie.com Emily A Bushaw Perkins Coie (sea) 206-359-3069 ebushaw@perkinscoie.com Plaintiff Jasmine Buckmaster Represented By Matthew Heyert Entente Law 253-446-7668 mheyert@ententelaw.com James Brian Pizl Entente Law PLLC 253-446-7668 jim@ententelaw.com TD BANK: Court Narrows Claims in "Chiew" ---------------------------------------- In the case captioned as ALEXANDER CHIEW, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 24-CV-7566 (PKC) (JRC) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Pamela K. Chen of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The breach of contract and New York General Business Law Section 349 claims will proceed to discovery. The claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and violations of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act are dismissed. Plaintiff Alexander Chiew alleges that Defendant TD Bank charged cash advance fees on transactions that fall outside those enumerated in the Credit Card Agreement. Plaintiff focuses on payments made on peer-to-peer mobile applications such as Venmo, PayPal, and Wise. On March 10, 2024, Plaintiff used his TD Bank card on Wise to purchase jewelry for $1,182.14. Defendant deemed the transaction a cash advance and charged him a cash advance fee of $59.11, in addition to immediately accruing interest. Plaintiff never received any cash or a cash-like transaction from Defendant that could later be used for a purchase. Defendant's Credit Card Agreement provides that transactions to obtain the following goods and services will be treated as a cash advance: travelers checks, foreign currency, money orders, wire transfers, cryptocurrency, debt repayments, lottery tickets, casino gaming chips, race track wagers, legal online wagers, or similar betting transactions, and any other similar cash-like transactions. According to Plaintiff, for many years, Defendant did not treat payments made on peer-to-peer mobile applications as cash advances and did not charge cash advance fees on such transactions, and that Defendant changed its policy only recently and unbeknownst to consumers. Defendant argued that the Agreement unambiguously allowed it to treat Plaintiff's Wise transaction as a cash advance. The Court disagreed and found the Agreement ambiguous as to whether Defendant charges cash advance fees for payments made on peer-to-peer mobile applications. Applying Delaware contract law, the Court found Plaintiff's interpretation, invoking ejusdem generis, to be reasonable. Plaintiff contended that cash-like transactions are limited to those in which an individual obtains fungible currency, a reading supported by other provisions of the Agreement that describe cash advances as those obtained from an automated teller machine, namely paper currency or legal tender that can be spent anywhere. The Court concluded that Defendant had not established that its interpretation was the only reasonable one as a matter of law. Because both parties offered reasonable interpretations of the phrase cash-like transactions, the Court found the phrase ambiguous and denied the motion to dismiss. The Court granted dismissal of Plaintiff's implied covenant claim. Plaintiff failed to allege a specific implied contractual obligation with the requisite specificity. The Court further found that no contractually vested discretion could be reasonably inferred from the Agreement, as the Agreement provides that cash-like transactions will be treated as a cash advance, leaving no discretion in Defendant's hands. Absent any contractually vested discretion, Plaintiff's implied covenant claim merely rehashed the breach of contract claim and was therefore dismissed. The Court found that Plaintiff plausibly alleged all three elements of a Section 349 claim. First, as to consumer-oriented conduct, the Agreement is a materially uniform form contract that all TD Bank credit card holders are subject to, satisfying the requirement of potential impact on consumers at large. Second, as to material misleadingness, the Agreement used misleading contract language to deceive consumers about the true nature of its cash advance fee practices, and no reasonable consumer would expect to be charged cash advance fees on day-to-day purchases using third-party apps. Third, as to injury and causation, Plaintiff alleged that had he known Defendant would consider his payment via Wise to be a cash advance, he would have chosen to make the payment for his jewelry a different way. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 349 claim, noting that courts in this Circuit have allowed Section 349 claims to proceed alongside breach of contract claims even where the harm alleged is identical to the loss alleged for the breach of contract claims. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim for failure to plead with sufficient particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). While the complaint identified the statements at issue, where they were made, and who made them, it failed to specify when those statements were made. Plaintiff alleged only that misrepresentations occurred during the course of Defendant's business, without providing a more specific timeline. Plaintiff informed the Court that he declines to pursue his Delaware consumer protection claim. The Court thereby dismissed that claim. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant's motion as to the breach of contract and Section 349 claims, which will proceed to discovery, and granted the motion as to the implied covenant, New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and Delaware Consumer Fraud Act claims. A copy of the Court's decision dated March 10, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OtEZGk from PacerMonitor.com Defendant TD Bank, N.A. Represented By Samuel Joshua McHale Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale And Dorr LLP 202-663-6346 sam.mchale@wilmerhale.com Noah A. Levine Wilmerhale 212-230-8800 noah.levine@wilmerhale.com Ann E. Himes Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale And Dorr LLP 202-663-6100 annie.himes@wilmerhale.com Plaintiff Alexander Chiew Represented By Andrew Shamis Shamis & Gentile P.A. 305-479-2299 ashamis@shamisgentile.com Sophia Goren Gold Kalielgold PLLC 202-350-4783 sgold@kalielgold.com Edwin Eliu Elliott Shamis & Gentile, P.A. 305-479-2299 edwine@shamisgentile.com TESLA INC: Judge Dismisses Odometer Class-Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Not A Tesla App reports that a high-profile class-action lawsuit accusing Tesla of intentionally manipulating vehicle odometers to prematurely void customer warranties has officially been thrown out. The US District Court for the Central District of California has dismissed the case of Nyree Hinton v. Tesla, Inc., putting an end to a legal battle that threatened to rope in over a million California Tesla owners and sparked wild online conspiracy theories about Tesla's equivalent of the Volkswagen Dieselgate. Odometergate Allegations The lawsuit, originally filed in April 2025, centered on some highly unusual claims. The plaintiff, Nyree Hinton, alleged that the odometer on his used 2020 Model Y was running significantly faster than his actual driven mileage. Hinton claimed that instead of measuring actual physical distance traveled, Tesla was using a hidden algorithm that tied the odometer to energy consumption, driver behavior, and predictive metrics. According to the suit, this caused his vehicle to inexplicably log up to 72 miles per day for a commute that was 20 miles at most. The plaintiff argued that Tesla intentionally designed this system to rapidly burn through the 50,000-mile Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty. Because of this alleged artificial mileage inflation, Hinton claimed his warranty expired prematurely, leaving him on the hook for a $10,000 suspension repair bill. A Dumb Lawsuit The lawsuit gained massive traction online when it was filed, but the claims were immediately met with extreme skepticism from the broader Tesla community. Third-party API tracking platforms, which log exact GPS coordinates and mileage for thousands of vehicles globally, showed absolutely no evidence of fleet-wide odometer discrepancies. Further, manipulating an odometer is a severe state and federal offense, making it highly illogical that Tesla would risk its entire business to save marginal dollars on localized warranty claims. Elon Musk bluntly dismissed the allegations shortly after the suit made headlines. Tesla's legal team followed suit, forcefully denying all material allegations, moving the case to federal court, and filing a motion to dismiss. The Silent Dismissal This week, the federal court officially sided with Tesla. Following a recent hearing, the district judge granted Tesla's motion to dismiss the case, completely shutting down the plaintiff's attempt to turn the grievance into a massive, state-wide class action. Whether the plaintiff may have experienced a localized software glitch, a tire-size calibration error, or simply misunderstood his daily driving habits, the court's dismissal legally shuts down the narrative that Tesla is engaged in a systemic conspiracy to defraud owners of their warranty rights. What is most interesting is that while the lawsuit was picked up across major mainstream media, the subsequent dismissal was completely ignored. Chalk up another one for FUD. [GN] TOM'S OF MAINE: Loses Bid to Toss Lead Contamination Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Douglas White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tom's of Maine, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 25-CV-00662 (OEM) (LKE) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Orelia E. Merchant of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint. Plaintiff Douglas White brought this putative class action against Defendant Tom's of Maine, Inc., alleging that Defendant deceptively and misleadingly manufactured, marketed, and sold its Kid's Natural Fluoride-Free Toothpaste Silly Strawberry and Toddler Natural Fluoride-Free Toothpaste Mild Fruit products without disclosing to consumers that they are contaminated with unsafe levels of lead or arsenic. Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of Staten Island, New York, purchased the products on multiple occasions from brick-and-mortar stores in Staten Island and gave his child Defendant's products, including in January 2025. Independent testing of the Kid's Natural Fluoride-Free Toothpaste Silly Strawberry product detected lead at 455 parts per billion and arsenic at 68 parts per billion. The products' packages did not identify lead or arsenic as ingredients, nor did they include any warning that lead or arsenic was present. Plaintiff alleged he was harmed in six ways: (1) paying a sum of money for products that were not what Defendant represented; (2) paying a premium price for products that were not what Defendant represented; (3) being deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the products purchased were different from what Defendant warranted; (4) being deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the products had less value than what Defendant represented; (5) ingesting substances that were of a different quality than what Defendant promised; and (6) being denied the benefit of the properties of the products Defendant promised. Plaintiff asserted four causes of action: (1) violation of New York General Business Law Section 349; (2) violation of New York General Business Law Section 350; (3) negligence per se; and (4) unjust enrichment. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to allege a concrete injury-in-fact because he did not state that the lead and arsenic levels posed any material safety risk or rendered the products unsafe, unusable, or worthless. The Court disagreed. Plaintiff alleged that if he knew the truth about the content of lead and arsenic in the products, he would have paid less for them or not paid for them at all. The Court held that overpayment is a sufficient economic injury for Article III standing and that Plaintiff plausibly alleged he overpaid for the products based on a misrepresentation that they were safe and healthy for kids. Therefore, Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing was denied. The Court next considered whether Plaintiff's state-law claims were expressly preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Court distinguished between Plaintiff's misrepresentation theory and his omission theory. As to the misrepresentation theory, the Court held that Plaintiff's claim paralleled the FDCA, which prohibits the labeling or packaging of cosmetics in a false or misleading way, and denied the motion to dismiss on preemption grounds. As to the omission theory, Plaintiff did not allege that lead or arsenic are a component in the manufacture of the products; rather, he asserted that the products are contaminants. Because Plaintiff failed to allege that lead and arsenic are ingredients under the FDCA, he did not plausibly allege that Defendant was required to include them on the label. Accordingly, the omission-based claims were dismissed as expressly preempted. The Court held that there is a plausible link between the belief that the products are healthy or safe for children and the allegation that they contain potentially unsafe levels of lead or arsenic. Plaintiff adequately alleged a price-premium theory by claiming he paid more for the products than he otherwise would have had they not been marketed as safe or healthy for kids. Therefore, Defendant's motion with respect to Plaintiff's misrepresentation-based GBL Section 349 and Section 350 claims was denied. The Court held that Plaintiff plausibly alleged adulteration, finding that lead and arsenic are injurious to health and may render the products injurious to users. The Court further held that Plaintiff plausibly alleged misbranding, as Defendant marketed the products as healthy for kids, constituting at least a plausible claim that Plaintiff was misled by the products' kid-safe character. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss the negligence per se claim was denied. The Court held that Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim was duplicative of his GBL claims, as both rested upon the same price-premium theory that Defendant was unjustly enriched in realizing revenues from the products to Plaintiff's detriment even though the products were misrepresented. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim was granted and this claim was dismissed. The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss. The motion was denied with respect to standing, Plaintiff's misrepresentation-based GBL Section 349 and Section 350 claims, and the negligence per se claim. The motion was granted with respect to express preemption of Plaintiff's omission-based GBL Section 349 and Section 350 claims and the unjust enrichment claim, and those claims were thereby dismissed. A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7OUjPl from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Tom's Of Maine, Inc. Represented By Glenn S. Kerner Greenberg Traurig LLP 212-801-9306 kernerg@gtlaw.com Nilda Maria Isidro Greenberg Traurig LLP 212-801-9335 isidron@gtlaw.com Plaintiff Douglas White Represented By Russell Busch Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC 630-796-0903 rbusch@milberg.com Philip J. Furia Furia Law 646-830-1915 furiap@furiafirm.com TERMINATED PARTIES Defendant Colgate-Palmolive Co. Terminated: 05/23/2025 Represented By Glenn S. Kerner Greenberg Traurig LLP 212-801-9306 kernerg@gtlaw.com Nilda Maria Isidro Greenberg Traurig LLP 212-801-9335 isidron@gtlaw.com WALT DISNEY: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Class Action for $50-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that the Walt Disney Company is set to pay $50 million to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the media giant effectively doubled the price of live streaming services such as YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream by forcing them to include ESPN sports channels, in violation of federal antitrust laws. The $50 million proposed Walt Disney Company settlement was filed by the plaintiffs on March 5, 2026 and awaits preliminary approval from the court. If approved, the Disney settlement would cover: -- All individuals who purchased a YouTube TV subscription at any time from April 1, 2019 to the date the settlement receives preliminary approval (the YouTube TV settlement class); and -- All individuals who purchased a DirecTV streaming live pay TV subscription (branded at various times as, at least, DirecTV Stream, DirecTV Now and AT&T TV Now) at any time from April 1, 2019 through the date of preliminary approval (the DirecTV Stream settlement class). If approved by the court, the Disney class action settlement will provide injunctive relief and monetary benefits to consumers who were allegedly overcharged for YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream. Per court documents, a monetary distribution plan has yet to be determined, but the amount of each person's valid claim will be determined based on where they lived (given the differences in state laws) and how long they subscribed to each service. Per court documents, Disney settlement class members will have the option to file a claim form online or by mail and may receive their payout via electronic payment or check. The proposed settlement agreement stipulates that Disney must also implement certain business practice changes for a period of three years. In particular, during carriage agreement negotiations, Disney will consider proposals from streaming live pay TV (SLPTV) providers -- i.e., those who provide live television streamed over the internet to subscribers -- to offer subscriptions that do not include every Disney network, such as pricier channels like ESPN, court documents relay. Additionally, Disney has agreed to uphold "information walls" to prevent confidential information from carriage negotiations from being shared between negotiators for its linear networks, such as ESPN, and its SLPTV providers, such as Hulu + Live TV. If the proposed settlement receives preliminary approval, the court will determine whether to grant final approval following a hearing at a later date. The Walt Disney Company class action lawsuit claimed that Disney's anticompetitive carriage agreements with SLPTV providers, including YouTube TV and DirecTV, violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, as they required providers to include ESPN in their lowest-priced packages and contained a "most-favored-nation clause" that essentially assured Disney that any price increases caused by ESPN rates would not be undercut by other providers. The filing contended that Disney used ESPN and Hulu, which it acquired in 2019, to create a "price floor" in the market and artificially inflate the costs of other streaming services by raising the prices of its own products, to the detriment of consumers. [GN] ********* 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 ***