260407.mbx

260407.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 7, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 69 Headlines ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Class Action for Misleading Investors AMAZON.COM INC: Rose Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. AMERIVENTS CATERING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McKeever Suit Says BITFARMS LTD: Continues to Defend Olympio Shareholder Class Suit BJMC GLOBAL: Solomon Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Hourly-Paid Staff CERNER CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Scorio Suit Says CHOWCHOW CLOUD: Hansink Sues Over Securities Market Manipulation COMPUTER MERCHANT: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $610,000 CONDUENT BUSINESS: Reid Sues Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharge DIRECT DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Texas DISC MEDICINE: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ENTAIN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Fast Codes In-Play Betting Service ERICSSON INC: Gray and Ross Sue Over Data Security Failure FIREFLIES.AI CORP: Unlawfully Collects Voiceprints, Parrinello Says GEORGIA: Gordon Suit Alleges Racialized Extraction Economy GOFUNDME INC: Nonprofits Sue Over Use of AI for Online Fundraising GROCERY OUTLET: Jones Sues Over Alleged Securities Law Breaches HITEK GLOBAL: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims HONEY POT: Senior Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind HP INC: Frost Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users IMMUNITYBIO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 26 INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Patel Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info KARTOON STUDIOS: Continues to Defend GBI Securities Class Suit KEZAR LIFE: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Aurinia Pharmaceuticals LACHMAN INC: Keller et al. Seek Proper Wages for Bartenders LANZATECH GLOBAL: Court OK's Settlement Amount in Class Suit LETTER RIDE LLC: Underpays Delivery Associates, Logan Suit Says LIFESTYLE EVOLUTION: Lopez Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance MARYBAN HOLDINGS: Superior Court Certifies COVID-19 Class Action MASS GENERAL: Faces Santana Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Mass. MAXIM HAIR: Faces Scott Suit Over Data Privacy Violations META PLATFORMS: Kang Sues Over AI Glasses' Secret Surveillance META PLATFORMS: Kimber et al. Allege AI Glasses' Privacy Violations MONSANTO COMPANY: Kudela Sues Over Unsafe Roundup Herbicide MORGAN TRUCK: Faces Jones Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation MYUNG GA: Underpays Restaurant Employees, Ko Alleges NUTRIEN LTD: IIHAB Partnership Alleges Price Fixing Conspiracy ONEIDA BUSINESS: Faces Nieves Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in D.N.M. OSI SYSTEMS: Faces Rave Suit Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info PARK SAN BAL: Guarcas Sues Over Alleged Wage and Hour Law Violation PINTEREST INC: Robbins Faces Class Suit for Misleading Investors PLATINUM US: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised SlimQuick PORTLAND LEATHER: Dalton Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website POWERFLEET INC: Heiting Sues Over Data Broker Software Installation PURPOSEBUILT BRANDS: Kalayci Sues Over Products' Deceptive Labels RENU REAL: Shaffer Alleges Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act RUSTIC & MAIN: Nonato Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RUSTIC & MAIN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Nonato Alleges SANTA CLARA: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Modad Alleges SEAWORLD PARKS: Gay Sues Over Deceptive Unsolicited Spam Emails SEEL INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Shipping Insurance in Calif. SERITAGE GROWTH: Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed SHOKZ TECHNOLOGY: Rushefsky Sues Over Website's Access Barriers SYNGENTA CROP: Riles Sues Over Paraquat Herbicide's Health Risks TRANSUNION: Fails to Safeguard Sensitive Information, Raskin Says TRUHEALTH ANCILLARY: Underpays Health Care Staff, Pumphrey Claims TYREE OIL: Faces Hubbs Suit Over Alleged Private Data Breach US BANCORP: Mikesch Files Suit Over Tobacco Surcharge VALVE CORPORATION: Galas Files Suit Over Unlawful Loot Box Profits VERTEX INC: Faces Lynch Class Suit Over Data Security Failures WALMART INC: Loubaton Sues Over Unlawful Sales Tax Collection WE MAKE MOVIES: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Moore-Pryor Says X.AI CORP: Faces Suit Over Grok's Generated Sexual Abuse Material ********* ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Class Action for Misleading Investors ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALDX) between November 3, 2023 and March 16, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Aldeyra investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Aldeyra class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=38697 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants' statements about Aldeyra's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. 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 29, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=38697 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN 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. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260330874935/en/ CONTACT: 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 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Rose Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The case DEVIN ROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV04698, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 23, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03127 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of the False Advertising Law and California's Business and Professions Code. Amazon.com, Inc. is an online retailer headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jedediah Wakefield, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP One Front Street, 33rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 Facsimile: (650) 938-5200 Email: jwakefield@fenwick.com AMERIVENTS CATERING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McKeever Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN McKEEVER, on behalf of himself and all others similar situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIVENTS CATERING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01476 (E.D.N.Y., March 13, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendant employed hospitality workers, such as Plaintiff, to work the Ryder Cup at Bethpage Black, in Farmingdale, NY, from September 21, 2025, through September 28, 2025. In violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, the Defendant failed to pay Ryder Cup Workers their earned tips. The Defendant also offered the Ryder Cup Workers an attendance incentive bonus in which Ryder Cup Workers would receive additional pay for perfect attendance. The Defendant, however, without good cause, failed to pay and unduly withheld the Attendance Bonus from the Ryder Cup Workers, in violation of Article 6 of NYLL, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, NY, Amerivents Catering LLC operates a hospitality-staffing company known as Amerivents or Amerivents Staffing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C. 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com gkaske@kesslermatura.com BITFARMS LTD: Continues to Defend Olympio Shareholder Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bitfarms Ltd. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Olympio shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. A purported shareholder filed a putative class action complaint on May 9, 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, initially captioned Olympio v. Bitfarms Ltd., Benjamin Gagnon, Jeffrey Lucas, and Geoff Morphy, case no. 1:25-cv-02630, and later, as amended on October 21, 2025, proceeding under the caption In re: Bitfarms Securities Litigation, case no. 1:25-cv-02630. Co-Lead Plaintiffs Zhao Jun, Gong Lanfang, Michael Pearl, Kazim Khan, and Michael Lawarre, on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities (subject to specified exceptions) that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock from March 21, 2023 through December 9, 2024, sued Bitfarms Ltd., its current Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, and its former Chief Executive Officer, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and asserting that the Company and these individuals made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and internal controls over financial reporting. The lawsuit, which was filed by Pomerantz Law Firm, seeks class certification, unspecified damages plus interest, and attorney and expert witness fees and other costs. The Company cannot predict the duration or outcome of this lawsuit, is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this lawsuit, and had not recognized any provision as of December 31, 2025, and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Bitfarms Ltd is a global Bitcoin mining company that operates blockchain computing centers powered primarily by hydroelectric energy. The company focuses on sustainable, large-scale digital asset mining and related infrastructure operations. BJMC GLOBAL: Solomon Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Hourly-Paid Staff ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARLO SOLOMON, PATRICIA JACKSON and GUILLERMO LAGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BJMC GLOBAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00857 (D.N.M., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, and the New Mexico Healthy Workplaces Act including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide sick leave, and failure to provide wage notice. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as hourly paid employees. BJMC Global, LLC is a disaster recovery and other services provider based in Greer, South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hessam Parzivand, Esq. Travis Bryan, Esq. THE PARZIVAND LAW FIRM, PLLC 10701 Corporate Dr., Suite 185 Sugar Land, TX 77477 Telephone: (713) 533-8171 (832) 233-7527 Facsimile: (713) 533-8193 Email: hp@parzfirm.com travis@parzfirm.com CERNER CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Scorio Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA SCORIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH; and ST. JOSEPH'S HEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00229-FJG (W.D. Miss., March 18, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants store a litany of highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information -- together "Private Information" -- about their current and former patients. But Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated their insufficiently protected computer systems in the Data Breach. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's Private Information. In short, Defendants' failures placed the Class' Private Information in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Cerner Corporation operates as a healthcare software company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64113 Telephone: (816) 714-7112 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com - and - Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Suite #300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 Email: thudson@wcllp.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Ave., Ste. 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com CHOWCHOW CLOUD: Hansink Sues Over Securities Market Manipulation ---------------------------------------------------------------- NISHA HANSINK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHOWCHOW CLOUD INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED, YEE KAR WING, HUI WAI MING, WONG CHUNG WAI, US TIGER SECURITIES, INC., ASSENTSURE PAC, and JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02063 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2026) pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired CHOW securities between September 16, 2025, and December 10, 2025. The case arises from the sudden collapse of CHOW's stock price on December 10, 2025, including multiple halts of trading by the New York Stock Exchange in the Company's securities due to volatility from market manipulation that caused the Company's stock price to surge following the initial public offering despite no fundamental change in profile, news or information from the Company. On that date, trading in the Company's stock was halted twice and its price suffered a collapse of 84.3% from a closing price of $11.70 per share on December 9, 2025, down to $1.83 per share at closing on December 10, 2025. Moreover, investigation and public reports have revealed that CHOW was a vehicle utilized in a market manipulation and "pump-and-dump" promotional scheme, alleges the suit. CHOW is a Cayman Islands incorporated holding company headquartered in Hong Kong. The Company's common stock traded on the NYSE American under the symbol CHOW. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. Patrick Donovan, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: guiney@whafh.com donovan@whafh.com COMPUTER MERCHANT: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $610,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that the Computer Merchant has agreed to a $610,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the IT software engineering staffing and services company failed to protect the private information of its current, former and prospective employees from a July 2024 data breach. The $610K Computer Merchant class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 18, 2026 and covers all individuals in the United States whose private information was potentially compromised as a result of the July 2024 data breach and who were sent notice from the company. Per court documents, approximately 34,127 individuals are covered by the deal. The court-approved website for the Computer Merchant data breach settlement can be found at ComputerMerchantClassSettlement.com. According to the website, all Computer Merchant settlement class members are automatically eligible to enroll in one free year of CyEx Financial Shield Complete, which includes monitoring for financial fraud, identity theft, unauthorized transactions and high-risk transactions. The settlement agreement states that all class members were sent a unique enrollment code by mail or email, and that they may enter their code on this page to enroll in the service. Enrollment will be activated after the court grants final approval to the deal, the agreement adds. Settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form have several options for monetary compensation and may claim multiple benefits. Class members who file a claim form with proof of out-of-pocket losses stemming from the breach are eligible to receive up to $500 in reimbursement. Class members must submit third-party documentation, like receipts, showing that the expenses were actual, unreimbursed, and incurred between July 1, 2024 and June 24, 2026. The agreement states that reimbursable expenses include costs to obtain credit reports, credit monitoring, credit freezes, replacement IDs, and miscellaneous expenses, such as postage. Moreover, class members who submit a claim form with documented proof of extraordinary expenses stemming from the breach are eligible to receive up to $3,000 in reimbursement for expenses related to identity theft or fraud incurred because of the Computer Merchant data breach. The agreement states that class members must provide third-party documentation demonstrating that their losses were actual, unreimbursed, and incurred between July 1, 2024 and June 24, 2026, and that the class member made reasonable efforts to avoid the loss. Class members may also file a claim form to receive reimbursement for up to five hours of lost time spent responding to the breach, at a rate of $20 per hour, subject to the $500 out-of-pocket-loss cap. In lieu of claiming any out-of-pocket losses, class members may file a claim form to receive a one-time alternative cash payment of approximately $40, with no proof required. The final amount of this payment is subject to a pro rata, or equally shared, increase or decrease, depending on the number of valid claims filed, the agreement says. Finally, class members who were California residents at the time of the breach are eligible to receive an additional one-time cash payment of approximately $75, in accordance with statutory provisions under the California Consumer Privacy Act. Class members may claim as many settlement benefits as they qualify for, but may not receive both the out-of-pocket loss payment and the alternative cash payment, the agreement states. The settlement agreement further notes that all payments may be subject to a pro-rated increase or reduction, depending on the number of valid claims filed and the amount remaining in the net settlement fund after the payment of attorneys’ fees, administration costs, taxes and lead plaintiff service awards. Court documents state that class members may receive their settlement payout via check or electronic payment, and all checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance before expiration. To file a Computer Merchant data breach claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form from the site to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator on the third page of the document. All Computer Merchant settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by June 24, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Computer Merchant settlement following a hearing on July 9, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Computer Merchant class action lawsuit claimed that the information technology company failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive information of its current, former and prospective employees from a July 2024 data breach. Per court documents, private information that may have been compromised in the breach includes names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, financial information and health information. [GN] CONDUENT BUSINESS: Reid Sues Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharge ----------------------------------------------------------- HUGH REID, Individually and as Representative of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries on Behalf of the Conduent Business Services, LLC Welfare Benefit Plan, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC; Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02989 (D.N.J., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for imposing punitive health insurance surcharges on employees who use tobacco products. This lawsuit challenges Defendant's practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher premiums for their health and other insurances provided by Conduent. Such surcharges violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and its anti-discrimination provisions by unfairly targeting employees based on their health status, such as tobacco use. The complaint relates that the Conduent Plan does not provide the required reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did, Defendant has failed to adequately notify employees in all plan communications about the availability of such an alternative that would enable employees to avoid the surcharge for the entire year. Consequently, Defendant's tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions by imposing additional costs on employees who use tobacco products without meeting the legal requirements for a bona fide wellness program. Plaintiff Hugh Reid is a citizen of the State of North Carolina. Mr. Reid was an employee of Conduent from 2019 to 2021 and was a participant of the Conduent Plan who paid the tobacco surcharge, which was taken directly from his paycheck each pay period, including during the Class Period (March 23, 2020, to the time of judgment). Defendant Conduent Business Services, LLC is a Fortune 1000 company and a "business solutions partner of choice for businesses and governments globally."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Austin D. Skelton, Esq. THE LACY EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM LLC 2564 Brunswick Pike Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: 609-900-4053 E-mail: austin.skelton@employment-labor-law.com - and - Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq. CHIRINOS LAW FIRM PLLC 20283 State Road 7, Ste 592 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 299-6334 E-mail: tchirinos@chirinoslawfirm.com - and - Charles J. Stiegler, Esq. STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC 318 Harrison Ave., #104 New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (504) 267-0777 E-mail: charles@stieglerlawfirm.com - and - Seth J. Bloom, Esq. BLOOM LEGAL LLC 825 Girod Street, Suite A New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 599-9997 E-mail: sjb@bloomlegal.com DIRECT DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------------ Direct Digital Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Company is subject to securities class action litigation, which is expensive and could divert management's attention, harm its reputation, and leave it liable for substantial damages. On May 23, 2024, an alleged stockholder, purportedly on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between April 2023 and March 2024, filed a putative class action against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging violations of federal securities laws related to alleged false or misleading disclosures made by the Company in its public filings. On July 9, 2024, another alleged stockholder filed a similar securities class action against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, also in the Southern District of Texas. The two actions have been consolidated. Each of these complaints seeks unspecified damages, plus costs, fees, and attorneys' fees. On Aug. 7, 2025, the district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in full and with prejudice. The lead plaintiff has since appealed that dismissal and filed an opening brief on Nov. 3, 2025. The Company filed a response brief on Jan. 2, 2026. The lead plaintiff filed a reply brief on Feb. 6, 2026. The Company now awaits the court's decision about whether to set the case for oral argument and cannot make any predictions about the final outcome of this matter or the timing thereof but believes that plaintiffs' claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits. Direct Digital Holdings, Inc. is a digital advertising and media technology company that operates proprietary programmatic platforms connecting advertisers with targeted audiences across multiple channels. The company serves a diverse base of small and mid-sized businesses as well as larger enterprise clients in the United States. DISC MEDICINE: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Disc Medicine, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRON) resulting from allegations that Disc Medicine may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Disc Medicine securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=56641 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 13, 2026, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") to Disc Medicine regarding its bitopertin program. The FDA stated they could not approve Disc Medicine's new drug application ("NDA") as there were uncertainties in the NDA that would need additional evidence. On this news, Disc Medicine's stock price fell 22% on February 13, 2026. 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. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. 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. At the time 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. 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 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ENTAIN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Fast Codes In-Play Betting Service ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bren O'Brien, writing for The Straight, reports that two of Australia's three biggest bookmakers have now been caught up in class actions which contest the legality of their fast codes in-play betting service, with Entain joining Sportsbet in the sights of lawyers Maurice Blackburn. The class action launched by Maurice Blackburn into the legality of the use of fast codes to facilitate in-play sports betting has extended to Entain's Ladbrokes and Neds brand. The law firm had initially launched a class action against Sportsbet, with punters who used the fast code service to play losing in-play bets between December 2018 and December 2024 automatically included in the action unless they specifically opted out. That complaint was brought by Jeremy Bergman but is now likely to involve thousands of people. It would be a similar situation for Entain, which introduced a fast code service in March 2019. "The class action relates to in-play bets (also known as live bets) made on sporting events using the Neds or Ladbrokes Fast Code service," the statement from Maurice Blackburn said. "The class action alleges that the Fast Code service is illegal. It seeks compensation for anyone who made a losing in-play bet on a sporting event using the service through Neds or Ladbrokes between 4 March 2019 and 4 March 2025." The notice said that anyone who made one or more losing in-play bets on a sporting event using the Neds or Ladbrokes Fast Code service between March 4, 2019 and March 4, 2025, and you lost more money than they won would be part of the action. "An in-play bet is one made after the beginning of a sporting event. The class action does not include bets placed on racing (horse, harness or greyhound) events," the notice read. Those who are part of the class action could be eligible for compensation if the case is successful. Entain has confirmed it will defend the action and has launched its own counter claim, which could mean that punters may be forced to return winnings should the court determine that the fast codes were not legal. Under the Interactive Gambling Act, placing a wager on a sporting event after it has commenced is unlawful in Australia, unless the bet is made by telephone. In the Sportsbet case, it was alleged it had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by representing that the product was legal, breaching its fast code service terms and conditions. In the initial claim surrounding the Sportsbet case, lodged by Maurice Blackburn in December 2024, Bergman has claimed he lost $2307 using the fast codes service between August 2019 and December 2021. It is believed he is the lead plaintiff again in the Entain case, but his losses were much less. [GN] ERICSSON INC: Gray and Ross Sue Over Data Security Failure ---------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER GRAY and ANTHONY ROSS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ERICSSON INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00266 (E.D. Tex., March 16, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data about its current and former customers and employees. On April 28, 2025, the Defendant discovered it had lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals. The data breach has impacted 15,661 of Defendant's current and former customers and employees. And yet, Defendant waited until March 9, 2026--an entire year after it discovered the data breach--to begin notifying victims that their information had been compromised in the data breach, says the suit. Headquartered in Plano, TX, Ericsson Inc. provides cloud applications, mobility, and broadband services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com FIREFLIES.AI CORP: Unlawfully Collects Voiceprints, Parrinello Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER PARRINELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIREFLIES.AI CORP., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-02479 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's collection, possession, and retention of the Plaintiff's and Class members' biometric data, including voiceprints, without the notice, written consent, and statutory safeguards required by BIPA. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. Fireflies.AI Corp. is an artificial intelligence company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne R. Kramer, Esq. Douglas M. Werman, Esq. John J. Frawley, Esq. WERMAN SALAS PC 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Email: akramer@flsalaw.com dwerman@flsalaw.com jfrawley@flsalaw.com GEORGIA: Gordon Suit Alleges Racialized Extraction Economy ---------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT A. GORDON, a resident of the District of Columbia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Governor of Georgia and Attorney General of Georgia, Case No. 1:26-cv-00918-JEB (D.D.C., March 16, 2026) accuses the State of Georgia of operating a racialized extraction economy that have been stripping Black Georgians of wealth, labor, autonomy, and psychological security while enriching the State and its white citizens. The Plaintiff maintains that Georgia's statutes have inflicted codified psychological harms--state mandated humiliation, forced racial subordination, and the criminalization of Black presence in public space. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that Georgia's statutes have violated the fundamental rights protected by the Ninth Amendment, including the right to dignity, psychological security, and bodily autonomy. The Plaintiff seeks restitution, disgorgement, compensatory damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief to remedy ongoing consequences of Georgia's intentional, state-engineered racial extraction system. The State of Georgia is a sovereign state of the United States of America. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. GOFUNDME INC: Nonprofits Sue Over Use of AI for Online Fundraising ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Redden, writing for Oregon ArtsWatch, reports that nonprofit organizations across the country are being urged to join a federal class action lawsuit against GoFundMe for allegedly using artificial intelligence to create and profit from a reported 1.4 million unauthorized online fundraising accounts last year. Potential victims include nonprofit arts, culture, and humanities organizations in Oregon. The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Eugene accuses the online company of making money by creating unauthorized fundraising web pages for legitimate organizations and charging fees for donations mistakenly made to them. Although the pages looked legitimate, in many cases they included outdated or false information, and interfered with the organization's genuine fundraising efforts. "This is a class action brought by nonprofit charitable organizations whose names, identities, trademarks and logos, reputation, and goodwill were used by Defendant GoFundMe Inc. to solicit charitable donations, and collect gratuities and donation fees for itself, all without the knowledge, input, or authorization of the charities for which donations were being solicited and collected," the lawsuit alleges in part. The lawsuit was filed by two law firms. The Lusby Law Firm is based in Eugene. The Watts Law Firm is based in Austin, Texas. The three nonprofits currently leading the suit are Commute Options for Central Oregon, McKenzie Valley Long Term Recovery of Lane County, and Outdoor Education Adventures of McMinnville. Last October, Oregon ArtsWatch reported that the Portland Art Museum, Portland Center Stage, and Oregon ArtWatch were also victimized. Oregon ArtsWatch is currently consulting with legal counsel about joining the suit. U.S. District Court Judge Amy Potter has ordered the parties to finish discovery by July 10 and tell her whether they were able to come to a dispute resolution agreement by Aug. 10. "We encourage any organization who was victimized or even suspects they were victimized to contact us and join the class of victims if they qualify," attorney Gregory Lusby told Oregon ArtsWatch. "We anticipate amending the Complaint in the coming weeks to add the additional non-profits that are wanting to join the litigation," said Lusby, adding that the damages being sought will be determined after the discovery is completed. For more information about the lawsuit and how to join, go to wattstrialfirm.com/gofundme-lawsuit or email info@gofundmelawsuit.com. "Watts Law Firm, working with Lusby Law Firm, has filed a class action lawsuit against GoFundMe on behalf of nonprofits that allege their names, logos, and identities were used on fundraising pages without their knowledge or consent. The lawsuit alleges those pages misled donors, diverted charitable giving, and allowed GoFundMe to profit from fees and tips while harming nonprofits' fundraising efforts and public trust," Watts Law Firm says on its GoFundMe lawsuit page. Watts Law Firm announced a $125 million settlement ending a lawsuit filed by Oregon vineyards against utility company PacifiCorp over damage from 2020's Labor Day wildfires last October. The filing of the GoFundMe lawsuit was first reported by KOIN 6 News on March 17. In response to a request for comment, a GoFundMe spokesman said in an email, "Nonprofit Pages were created using publicly available information to help people support nonprofit organizations, with donations going to the intended nonprofit." "After hearing feedback from nonprofit leaders in October, we acted quickly to make Nonprofit Pages fully opt-in, removed and de-indexed unclaimed pages, and turned off search engine optimization by default." Oregon and other states criticize scheme That excuse, which GoFundMe had previously offered, did not prevent Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and 21 other Attorneys General from accusing GoFundMe of plagiarizing the identities of 1.4 million charities. "As has been publicly reported, in October of 2025, GoFundMe created its own donation web pages for 1.4 million charities located in the United States, without first asking those charities for permission. Based on public reports, we understand that GoFundMe generated these pages without the prior knowledge or consent of the referenced charities, and these charities, upon discovering the GoFundMe pages, were deeply troubled that the pages were set up in their names without their knowledge. The charities whose identities were taken by GoFundMe were unable to control their fundraising and brand. The unauthorized pages also created donor confusion, deception, distrust, and conflicting messaging," the state leaders said in a letter to GoFundMe that demanded proof that all of the unauthorized webpages had been taken down. One state has gone further. On March 10, Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox sued GoFundMe and six other crowdsourcing platforms for violating the state's Charitable Solicitations Act by creating unauthorized fundraising webpages. The other platforms are Pay Pal Inc, Charity Navigator, Just Giving, Pledgeto, and Network for Good. "Giving to charity -- whether it's time, treasure, or talent -- can be one of the most noble things a person does. Alaskans are generous people. But generosity depends on trust. GoFundMe and similar platforms used nonprofits' good names to solicit donations without coordinating with the organizations actually doing the charitable work," Cox said in a statement announcing the civil suit filed in Alaska Superior Court. A previous Oregon ArtsWatch story on the GoFundMe scheme can be found at https://www.orartswatch.org/nonprofits-hurt-by-gofundme-scheme-can-join-class-action-lawsuit/[GN] GROCERY OUTLET: Jones Sues Over Alleged Securities Law Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- TREVOR JONES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. GROCERY OUTLET HOLDING CORP., JASON POTTER, and CHRISTOPHER M. MILLER, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02291 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2026), pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Grocery Outlet securities between August 5, 2025 and March 4, 2026, inclusive. Throughout the said period, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company had "expanded too quickly" into new stores; (2) the Company's purportedly strong financial and operational growth was being artificially supported by excessive rapid store expansion; (3) as a result, the Company was unable to achieve the sustainable growth required to meet its previously set guidance; and (4) the Company's Restructuring Plan would require further Optimization to achieve its operational goals, including significant store closures and asset write-downs, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Hayward, CA, Grocery Outlet operates as a retailer of consumables and fresh products. The company's common stock trades on the NASDAQ stock market under the symbol “GO.” [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com - and - Corey Daniel Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010 Atlanta, GA 30346 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com HITEK GLOBAL: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Hitek Global Inc. (NASDAQ: HKIT) resulting from allegations that Hitek Global Inc. may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Hitek securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=56809 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: Rosen Law Firm is investigating potential civil securities claims. 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. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. 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. 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 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] HONEY POT: Senior Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HONEY POT COMPANY (DE), LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02217 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.thehoneypot.co, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Honey Pot Company de LLC was founded in 2012. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of sanitary paper products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal HP INC: Frost Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users -------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HP, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01858-KMM-LIB (D. Minn., March 13, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its website, www.hp.com, fail to ensure its website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. Moreover, Plaintiffs and the putative class now seek injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to provide its online website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the suit. Headquartered in Palo Alto, CA, HP, Inc. owns and operates the website which offers electronics and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndselaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com IMMUNITYBIO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired ImmunityBio, Inc. (NASDAQ: IBRX) securities between January 19, 2026 and March 25, 2026. ImmunityBio is a biotechnology company and ANKTIVA is the Company's lead biologic product. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that ImmunityBio, Inc. (IBRX) Misled Investors Regarding its Lead Product Candidate According to the complaint, during the class period, defendant Soon-Shiong materially overstated Anktiva's capabilities. Plaintiff alleges that on March 24, 2026, a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding defendant Soon-Shiong's claims about Anktiva was publicized. The warning letter indicated that "the promotional communications create a misleading impression that Anktiva, a treatment for certain types of bladder cancer, can cure and even prevent all cancer." The letter articulated additional false claims made by Soon-Shiong. On this news, ImmunityBio common stock fell $1.98 per share, or 21%, to close at $7.42 per share on March 24, 2026. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against ImmunityBio, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by May 26, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click https://robbinsllp.com/immunitybio-inc-2/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Tel: (800) 350-6003 E-mail: adumas@robbinsllp.com Website: www.robbinsllp.com [GN] INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Patel Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info --------------------------------------------------------------- POOJA PATEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-02480 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. is an American biotechnology company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine Ybarra, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 297-3807 Email: cybarra@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com thilton@sirillp.com KARTOON STUDIOS: Continues to Defend GBI Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Kartoon Studios, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Genius Brands securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The putative securities class action In re Genius Brands International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 2:20-cv-07457 DSF (RAOx), in which lead plaintiffs alleged that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer Andy Heyward, and its former Chief Financial Officer Robert Denton violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing allegedly false or misleading statements about the Company over an alleged class period running from March into early July 2020, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of persons who invested in the Company's common stock during the alleged class period, that defendants moved to dismiss lead plaintiffs amended complaint and, in a decision issued on August 30, 2021, the Court dismissed the amended complaint but granted lead plaintiffs a further opportunity to plead a claim, that on February 4, 2025, the District Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the renewed motion to dismiss and denying plaintiffs motion for leave to file a sur-reply, dismissing all claims against Mr. Denton and claims against the Company and Mr. Heyward based on all but one of the complained-of statements, but determining that plaintiffs had adequately pled a Section 10(b) claim based on March 2020 statements concerning the number of times that the Rainbow Rangers cartoon was airing on Nickelodeon and granting plaintiffs leave to amend their pleading another time as to the other alleged misstatements that were dismissed and as to any claims against Mr. Denton, that on March 3, 2025, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint seeking again to assert claims against the Company and Mr. Heyward related to the four alleged misstatements that survived the Ninth Circuit appeal and did not replead any claims against Mr. Denton, that on April 14, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, that on August 5, 2025, the District Court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint, dismissing two of the four alleged misstatements with prejudice, granting plaintiffs leave to amend as to one of the alleged misstatements, and denying the motion as to the fourth misstatement, that plaintiffs elected not to further amend their complaint, leaving only one alleged misstatement at issue in the case, namely a statement in a press release issued March 17, 2020 and repeated in a shareholder letter issued March 20, 2020 that the Nickelodeon cable platform Nick, Jr. had increased its airing of the Company's cartoon series Rainbow Rangers to 26 times a week, which plaintiffs claim was false and issued with an intent to deceive investors, that defendants have denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing, that given that only a small portion of the Third Amended Complaint remains and with no case schedule in place defendants filed a request with the Court to set a status conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 to limit the scope of discovery, to phase discovery, and to modify the normal rule requiring an allegation-by-allegation response to the Third Amended Complaint, that the Court granted the request and held the conference on January 12, 2026, at which time the Court determined that defendants did not need to file an answer to the Third Amended Complaint for now, denied the request to phase discovery, and agreed that merits discovery should be limited to the narrow issues that remain in the case, that the Court referred the specifics concerning the scope of discovery to Magistrate Judge Oliver, who held an initial conference and ordered that the parties submit letter-briefs regarding outstanding disputes concerning the scope of discovery by March 20, 2026, with responses due by April 3, 2026, that once letter briefing is complete the parties anticipate that the Magistrate will issue proposed orders setting bounds on the scope of discovery to be considered by the Court, that the Court is also expected to set a schedule for the case, that in the meantime defendants are engaged in document-collection efforts and fact-development work, and that the Company cannot predict the outcome of the securities class action. Kartoon Studios, Inc. (formerly Genius Brands International, Inc.) is a content and brand management company focused on developing, producing, and licensing multimedia entertainment properties for children and families. The company distributes animated and live-action programming and related consumer products across broadcast, streaming, and digital platforms worldwide. KEZAR LIFE: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Aurinia Pharmaceuticals --------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2025 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Kezar Life Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: KZR) related to its sale to Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Kezar shareholders are expected to receive $6.955 per share in cash and one non-transferable contingent value right. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/kezar-life-sciences-inc/https://monteverdelaw.com/case/calisa-acquisition-corp/https://monteverdelaw.com/?post_type=case&p=12170&preview=true. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] LACHMAN INC: Keller et al. Seek Proper Wages for Bartenders ----------------------------------------------------------- PAUL W. KELLER, TAUNYIA K. MICHIE, HEATHER J. BARNES-BRATTEN, JESSICA E. BACKUS, and HAILIE DANIELS, individually and on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. LACHMAN, INC., d/b/a South Beach Grill, CHARITY F. MADDEN, and BYRON E. MADDEN, JR., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00249 (E.D. Va., March 16, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and improperly withheld tips, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs owed to Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Wage Payment Act, and the Virginia Minimum Wage Act. The Defendants regularly and illegally had the Plaintiffs work off the clock hours for which they received no compensation. On other occasions, the Defendants held mandatory meetings for which they also failed to compensate the Plaintiffs. In addition, the Plaintiffs who worked as bartenders were routinely required to pool their tips and share them with managerial personnel including Charity Madden herself, or individuals who were not actual employees of the restaurant, says the suit. Lachman, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant and live music venue called the South Beach Grill located at 1091 Norfolk Avenue in Virginia Beach, VA. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian L. Connell, Esq. CHRISTIAN L. CONNELL, P.C. 555 East Main Street, Suite 1102 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 533-6500 Facsimile: (757) 299-4770 E-mail: christian.connell@outlook.com LANZATECH GLOBAL: Court OK's Settlement Amount in Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ LanzaTech Global, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the parties agreed to the settlement amount in the fiduciary duty violations class suit and was approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 4, 2026. In May 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against LanzaTech f/k/a AMCI, AMCI Sponsor II LLC ("AMCI Sponsor") and the individual directors of AMCI for purported damages arising from the Business Combination. The Company was voluntarily dismissed from the case in July 2024 before it was required to respond to the Complaint. The Complaint asserts claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty against the Director Defendants and (ii) unjust enrichment against AMCI Sponsor and the Director Defendants. As the surviving entity following the merger at issue, the Company has certain indemnification obligations to the Director Defendants in connection with the defense of the litigation. The Director Defendants have agreed to a settlement amount, which was approved by the Court on March 4, 2026, and will be funded by the Company in April. The Company has notified the relevant D&O insurance carriers of the litigation and, while the Director Defendants are covered for such costs by directors and officers insurance, such coverage is subject to a retention of $5,000. LanzaTech Global, Inc. is a carbon recycling and biotechnology company that uses gas fermentation technology to convert waste carbon into sustainable fuels and chemicals. The company partners with industrial facilities worldwide to reduce emissions and produce low-carbon products. LETTER RIDE LLC: Underpays Delivery Associates, Logan Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY LOGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Letter Ride, LLC, Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Logistics, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-01652 (W.D. Tex., March 13, 2026) seeks all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Letter Ride, LLC supplies last-mile delivery services to Amazon by contracting with Amazon as a delivery service provider. The company employs delivery associates--such as Plaintiff and the proposed collective--to deliver packages to Amazon's customers. In this case, the Plaintiff contends that the Amazon Defendants are liable as alleged joint employers for the Letter Ride's alleged failure to comply with the FLSA and applicable state wage and hour laws, including by failing to properly pay non-exempt delivery associates for all time worked--including overtime--as required under the applicable laws. Letter Ride, LLC is a courier service headquartered in San Diego, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (267) 256-9973 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com - and - Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd, Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: apiazza@bergermontague.com - and - Michaela L. Wallin, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: mwallin@bergermontague.com - and - Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3600 Facsimile: (215) 567-2310 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com LIFESTYLE EVOLUTION: Lopez Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance ----------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFESTYLE EVOLUTION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02062 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords non-disabled individuals. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Lifestyle Evolution, Inc. owns and operates the website, www.nugo.com, which offers nutrition bars for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal MARYBAN HOLDINGS: Superior Court Certifies COVID-19 Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernise Carolino of Law Times, reports that in a case alleging gross negligence in the operation of a licensed long-term care home during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ontario Superior Court certified the plaintiffs' class proceeding, designated them as representative plaintiffs, and appointed their lawyers as class counsel. In Estate of Brauch v. Maryban Holdings Ltd., 2026 ONSC 1616, the defendant owned and operated the care home. In their proposed class action, the plaintiffs alleged serious and preventable harm due to the defendant's deficient, delayed, piecemeal, reactive, reckless, and arbitrary -- rather than proactive and effective -- response to the pandemic in the care home. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant opted for such a response despite: -- the knowledge of the long-term care sector and the medical community regarding the nature of COVID-19, its specific risks to the elderly, and the importance of the precautionary principle when tackling COVID-19 and other respiratory outbreaks -- its recognition of its obligations to adhere to the proper guidance and best practices to avoid exposing the elderly to infection and death The plaintiffs contended that the defendant departed from the standard of care for infection prevention and control (IPAC) and the delivery of care to elderly and vulnerable residents. According to the plaintiffs, due to the defendant's conduct, the care home experienced at least three COVID-19 outbreaks from Dec. 21, 2020, to Mar. 30, 2023, resulting in at least 93 residents infected and at least 35 residents deceased due to COVID-19. The plaintiffs claimed that the care home could have prevented the outbreaks and saved lives if the defendant had abided by its common law obligations to the class members in the years before and during the pandemic. The plaintiffs added that the care home was susceptible to outbreaks due to long-running chronic deficiencies, including: -- an outdated, neglected, overcrowded, and understaffed facility -- insufficient IPAC training and protocols -- systematic failures to inspect and oversee compliance with the relevant regulatory and industry standards The plaintiff sought to certify this action under s. 5(1) of Ontario's Class Proceedings Act, 1992 (CPA). The defendant consented to certification. Class action certified First, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the claim advanced a reasonable cause of action for gross negligence that satisfied the requirement for a cause of action for certification under s. 5(1)(a) of the CPA. Second, the court found a workable, not unduly vague, and readily identifiable class that met the criteria for a certifiable class under s. 5(1)(b) of the CPA. The class included definitions of the following: -- residents, the resident class, and resident class members -- visitors, the visitor class, and visitor class members -- the family class and family class members The class period was from Jan. 25, 2020, to May 5, 2023, when the Public Health Agency of Canada issued a statement reflecting the World Health Organization's announcement that COVID-19 no longer amounted to a public health emergency of international concern. Third, the court held that the plaintiffs' proposed common issues regarding gross negligence, causation, damages, and remedies satisfied the commonality requirement in s. 5(1)(c) of the CPA. These common issues included: -- Did the defendant owe the class members a duty of care relating to COVID-19 outbreaks at the long-term care home? -- Did the defendant's breaches cause or contribute to any harms suffered or losses incurred by the class members? -- Were the class members entitled to general damages based on gross negligence, the disgorgement of any benefits and profits the defendant had received, as well as aggravated, exemplary, and/or punitive damages? Fourth, the court considered a class action the preferred way to proceed because the plaintiffs' action met the requirement in s. 5(1)(d) of the CPA. The court saw a good reason to favour a class action as a way to resolve the issues. The court explained that the alternative would be the class members' or their estate representatives' individual actions, which would be costly and cumbersome and would fail to fulfill a class action's goals of access to justice and judicial economy. Fifth, the court determined that the plaintiffs, who provided a workable litigation plan, satisfied the requirements for certification in s. 5(1)(e) of the CPA. The court found some factual basis to support that the representative plaintiffs: -- could and would fairly and sufficiently represent the class interests -- could instruct counsel on the class members' behalf -- had no interest in conflict with the class interests The court appointed the plaintiffs' counsel, who were from Rochon Genova and Will Trial Lawyers, as class counsel. [GN] MASS GENERAL: Faces Santana Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Mass. ---------------------------------------------------------- SIGFREDO SANTANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11401 (D. Mass., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Massachusetts Wage Act including failure to pay overtime wages and unjust enrichment/quantum meruit. The Plaintiff was employed as a full-time respiratory therapist at the Defendant's Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts from May 2022 to March 2025. Mass General Brigham, Inc. is a healthcare services provider in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hilary Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK, PC 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. Sarah Sears, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 50 Public Square, Suite 1900 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Email: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com MAXIM HAIR: Faces Scott Suit Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------- JASON SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAXIM HAIR RESTORATION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02256 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2026) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in the practice of disclosing the Plaintiff's and the putative class members' personally identifiable information and protected health information (collectively, "Private Information") in violation of state and federal law. Unknown to the Plaintiff and the Class, the Defendant has installed online tracking pixels on the Website which disclose and transmit the patients' Private Information to third parties, including, but not necessarily limited to, Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Meta") and TikTok, Inc. ("TikTok"). By installing the tracking pixels, Defendant knowingly and intentionally disclosed to Meta and TikTok its patients' health data and other highly sensitive information, including their PII, PHI, and the fact that the users sought consultations with hair transplantation clinics, the suit alleges. Maxim Hair Restoration, LLC specializes in hair restoration services, offering both surgical and non-surgical options with 0% financing available. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 165 Broadway, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-Mail: adrian@gucovschilaw.com - and - Tyler K. Somes, Esq. Jason Shi, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1100 15th Street NW, Ste 04-105K Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 900-3332 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Email: tsomes@hedinllp.com jshi@hedinllp.com META PLATFORMS: Kang Sues Over AI Glasses' Secret Surveillance -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW KANG and BETTY CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC., META PLATFORMS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, SAMASOURCE IMPACT SOURCING INC. d/b/a SAMA, and LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02503 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2026) is a class action seeking damages, injunctive, and equitable relief arising from Defendants' negligent manufacturing and design of Meta AI Glasses and sweeping undisclosed surveillance of private recordings made by Meta AI Glasses. The complaint relates that the Defendants market the glasses to users as being built for its users' privacy and assure users that they have control over what content they choose to share with others. However, whenever a person wearing Meta AI Glasses engages with Meta's AI platform -- the backbone of the glasses' utility -- the glasses create a recording of what the wearer sees and/or hears, says the complaint. These recordings are often made without the knowledge of bystanders who may be recorded, as well as without the knowledge of the Meta AI Glasses user themselves. The Defendants' actions of viewing private communications from the Meta AI Glasses used by Plaintiffs and similarly situated Class members, including without adequate disclosure and consent, constitutes a serious invasion of Plaintiffs' and Class members' privacy. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Classes, bring this class action to remedy the significant privacy harms caused by (1) Meta and Sama's (i) interception, recording, and/or accessing of Plaintiffs' and members of the Class's communications; (ii) the transmission of those recordings to unauthorized third parties, and (iii) the use of those recordings to train Meta's AI platform and (2) Luxottica's negligent manufacturing and design of the Meta AI Glasses which permits the Glasses to make recordings without the user's or those in the user's vicinity's knowledge and assert claims against Defendants for violations the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"); the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"); the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA"); the Stored Communications Act ("SCA"); the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); the California False Advertising Law ("FAL"); the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); intrusion upon seclusion; invasion of privacy; negligence; and unjust enrichment, says the suit. Plaintiffs Andrew Kang received the Meta AI Glasses as a gift in June 2025 from Plaintiff Betty Chen. Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. is a global technology company that provides social media platforms and communications services to users worldwide as well as advertising services to millions of companies. Among other products, Meta developed, manufactures (in partnership with Luxottica of America), markets, distributes, and sells Meta AI Glasses throughout the United States. Defendant Samasource Impact Sourcing, Inc. d/b/a Sama operates data annotation facilities in Nairobi, Kenya, where it employs thousands of data annotators who manually review, label, and annotate video, audio, and image data for Meta and other technology clients. Among the data reviewed by Sama's human data annotators in Kenya is data transmitted by Meta AI Glasses users to AI at Meta. Defendant Luxottica of America, Inc. ("Luxottica") is an Ohio corporation with its principal executive offices in Mason, Ohio. Luxottica of America, Inc., in partnership with Meta designs, manufactures, advertises, markets, and sells Meta AI Glasses throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com - and – Melissa L. Yeates, Esq. Tyler S. Graden, Esq. Jordan E. Jacobson, Esq. Daniel S. Dicce, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: myeates@ktmc.com tgraden@ktmc.com jjacobson@ktmc.com ddicce@ktmc.com META PLATFORMS: Kimber et al. Allege AI Glasses' Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHANETTA KIMBER, JALEESA SYKES, and W.R. BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC., and LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02243 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2026) alleges privacy violations arising out of the unlawful use of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private audio and visual recordings on their Meta AI-enabled smart glasses. According to the complaint, the Defendants marketed the Meta AI Glasses as a revolutionary product built with privacy at its core. Contrary to Defendants' assurances that privacy protections and anonymization safeguarded user content, recordings captured by the devices were routinely routed to human reviewers for manual inspection. According to whistleblower accounts, reviewers routinely encountered footage depicting individuals inside their homes engaged in intensely private activities. Accordingly, Plaintiffs now seek to hold Defendants accountable for their deceptive marketing, their failure to disclose material facts, and the profound invasion of privacy their practices created for millions of consumers and unsuspecting bystanders. The Plaintiffs assert claims for intrusion upon seclusion, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Federal Wiretap Act, and Illinois's Eavesdropping Statute. Headquartered in Menlo Park, CA, Meta Platforms, Inc. designs, manufactures (in partnership with EssilorLuxottica S.A.), distributes, markets, and sells the Meta AI Glasses. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kathryn (Lee) Boyd, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (646) 502-9515 E-mail: lboyd@hechtpartners.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. David L. Hecht, Esq. Brittany L. Sackrin, Esq. Justin Alvarez-Herman, Esq. Tiffany Wong, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (888) 421-4529 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 E-mail: dhecht@hechtpartners.com lfeldman@hechtpartners.com bsackrin@hechtpartners.com jalvarezherman@hechtpartners.com twong@hechtpartners.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Kudela Sues Over Unsafe Roundup Herbicide ----------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN KUDELA, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-291 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 13, 2026) is a class action arising from Defendants' 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. The Plaintiff maintains that Monsanto's glyphosate-containing Roundup-branded products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce. The Plaintiff also alleges that Monsanto lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with use of Roundup. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of their use of, and exposure to, Roundup which caused or was a substantial contributing factor in causing him to suffer from Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. The Plaintiff further asserts claims for negligence, strict products liability-design defect, strict products liability-failure to warn, breach of implied warranties, and for breach of consumer protection, unfair and/or deceptive trade practices statutes. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation headquartered in St. Louis, MO. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MORGAN TRUCK: Faces Jones Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------- MALLORI JONES, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. MORGAN TRUCK BODY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00066-WMR-JHR (N.D. Ga., March 13, 2026) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as well as brings a retaliation claim against Defendant Morgan under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Defendant employed Plaintiff as a production associate on the Reefer Press in the Van Body Line Reefer Department in Rydal, GA, from approximately October 2024 until February 5, 2025. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was terminated for engaging in protected activity. In addition, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not paid one and one-half times their regular rate. The Defendant also failed to include the bonuses in the regular rate of pay. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for Defendant's failure to pay all required overtime premiums at the correct overtime rate. Headquartered in Morgantown, PA, Morgan Truck Body LLC is a foreign limited liability company that manufactures truck and van bodies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. Grace A. Starling, Esq. Dana K. Ford, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT LLP 125 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 380 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 780-4880 Facsimile: (478) 575-2590 E-mail: jscott@radfordscott.com gstarling@radfordscott.com dford@radfordscott.com MYUNG GA: Underpays Restaurant Employees, Ko Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- ASEONG KO on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s) vs. MYUNG GA TOFU & BBQ RESTAURANT OF FLORIDA, INC., d/b/a MYUNG GA TOFU & BARBECUE, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60842-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay its respective employees all minimum wages and time and one-half for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Constitution. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff, and other current and former similarly situated employees, are hourly paid servers who worked for Defendant. Due to Defendant's policies and procedures, Plaintiff and other current and former similarly situated employees were/are deprived of complete minimum wages for all hours worked. Additionally, Defendant operated an unlawful tip pool and engaged in improper tip practices, including retaining a portion of Plaintiff's and similarly situated servers' tips, requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated servers to share their tips with employees who are not "customarily and regularly tipped employees," and permitting Defendant's owners and/or their family members to participate in and receive distributions from the tip pool. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's deliberate nonpayment of wages/tips, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members have been damaged in the loss of minimum wages and tips for the subject weeks that they worked for the Defendant. As a result of Defendant's willful violation of the Florida Constitution, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are entitled to liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, says the suit. Plaintiff ASEONG KO has worked for Defendant as a server in Weston, Broward County, Florida from approximately February 2024 to November 2025. Defendant, MYUNG GA TOFU & BBQ RESTAURANT OF FLORIDA, INC., d/b/a MYUNG GA TOFU & BARBECUE is a Korean restaurant in Closter, NJ.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeanie Kang, Esq. JKANG LEGAL, P.A. 114 Pauls Drive Brandon, FL 33511 Telephone: (813) 252-0822 E-mail: Jeanie.Kang@JKangLegal.com NUTRIEN LTD: IIHAB Partnership Alleges Price Fixing Conspiracy -------------------------------------------------------------- IIHAB Partnership, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUTRIEN LTD. et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00221-DGK (W.D. Mo., March 16, 2026) seeks for damages and injunctive relief against Defendants over alleged unlawful suppression of the country's NPK Fertilizer supply and artificially raising and fixing prices. Beginning on or around January 1, 2020, the Defendants entered into an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to limit the supply and fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of NPK Fertilizer sold in the United States at supra-competitive levels. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class have paid artificially inflated prices for NPK Fertilizer for more than six years and, as a result, have suffered injuries in violation of federal antitrust laws, says the suit. Headquartered in Loveland, CO, Nutrien Ag Solutions is the wholly owned subsidiary of Nutrien, an upstream fertilizer producer based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan T. White, Esq. Gene P. Graham, Jr., Esq. WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY, & CARR, LLC 19049 East Valley View Parkway, Ste. C Independence, MO 64055 Telephone: (816) 373-9080 Facsimile: (816) 373-9319 E-mail: ggraham@wagblaw.com bwhite@wagblaw.com - and - Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. Brandon M. Sadowsky, Esq. Lindsey E. Graham, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com bsadowsky@kttlaw.com lgraham@kttlaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Diane S. Rice, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 550 California Street, Suite 910 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com - and - Clayton A. Jones, Esq. CLAYTON JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 257 405 W. 58 Hwy. Raymore, MO 64083 Telephone: (816) 318-4266 Facsimile: (816) 318-4267 E-mail: clayton@claytonjoneslaw.com ONEIDA BUSINESS: Faces Nieves Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in D.N.M. ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN GABRIEL VEGA NIEVES, BRIANA JACKSON, BRITTANY JACKSON, and TYLER ROLLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ONEIDA BUSINESS ENTERPRISES INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00869 (D.N.M., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, and the New Mexico Healthy Workplaces Act including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide sick leave, and failure to provide wage notice. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as hourly paid employees. Oneida Business Enterprises Inc. is a professional services company based in Canastota, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hessam Parzivand, Esq. Travis Bryan, Esq. THE PARZIVAND LAW FIRM, PLLC 10701 Corporate Dr., Suite 185 Sugar Land, TX 77477 Telephone: (713) 533-8171 (832) 233-7527 Facsimile: (713) 533-8193 Email: hp@parzfirm.com travis@parzfirm.com OSI SYSTEMS: Faces Rave Suit Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL RAVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSI SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-01350 (C.D. Cal., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on December 25, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. OSI Systems, Inc. is a manufacturer of electronic systems based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com PARK SAN BAL: Guarcas Sues Over Alleged Wage and Hour Law Violation ------------------------------------------------------------------- SILVIA GUARCAS, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARK SAN BAL INC. and CHIN SUN CHOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01561 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from in or about September 2021, to in or about February 2026. Throughout her employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Among other things, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff spread-of-hours pay for each workday in which her spread of hours exceeded 10 hours, says the suit. Park San Bal Inc. operates a restaurant in the County of Queens and State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com PINTEREST INC: Robbins Faces Class Suit for Misleading Investors ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS) securities between February 7, 2025 and February 12, 2026. Pinterest is a visual social media platform on which users organize various kinds of content into "boards", which serve as inspiration for projects the user hopes to complete. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Pinterest, Inc. (PINS) Misled Investors Regarding its Revenues from Advertising According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Pinterest was experiencing and/or was likely to experience reduced revenues from its advertising partners; (ii) Pinterest overstated its ability to manage the impact of U.S. tariffs on the macroeconomic environment in which the Company operated, including the foreseeable impact on its advertising partners; (iii) the impact of the foregoing on Pinterest's advertising revenues was significant enough that Pinterest was facing and/or likely to face an imminent restructuring; and (iv) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all times. The Plaintiff alleges that on February 12, 2026, Pinterest announced its financial results for the fiscal quarter and year ended December 31, 2025. Among other items, Pinterest announced quarterly revenue of $1.32 billion, below the consensus estimate of $1.33 billion, and provided Q1 2026 revenue guidance of $951 million to $971 million, below the consensus estimate of $980.6 million. Chief Executive Officer William Ready attributed Pinterest's performance throughout 2025 to an "exogenous shock this year related to tariffs, which are disproportionately affecting ad spend from our top retail advertisers" and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") Julia Donnelly reported that "we expect these [tariff] headwinds will continue and may become slightly more pronounced in Q1". On this news, Pinterest's stock price fell $3.12 per share, or 16.83%, to close at $15.42 on February 13, 2026. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Pinterest, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, visit https://robbinsllp.com/pinterest-inc/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com [GN] PLATINUM US: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised SlimQuick --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Platinum US Distribution Inc., WellNX Life Sciences Inc. and WellNX Life Sciences DR Inc. Why: The plaintiffs allege the companies falsely advertise their SlimQuick weight-loss supplements as safe and effective. Where: The SlimQuick class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. Consumers claim in a new class action lawsuit that WellNX Life Sciences falsely advertise its SlimQuick weight-loss supplements as safe and effective. Plaintiffs Maria Nelson and Michelle Garza filed the class action complaint against Platinum US Distribution, WellNX Life Sciences and WellNX Life Sciences DR on Feb. 4 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the class action lawsuit, WellNX Life Sciences manufactures, markets, distributes and sells SlimQuick weight-loss supplements, including Regular Strength, Extra Strength, Pure Keto and Drink Mix. The plaintiffs allege the companies market SlimQuick with specific false efficacy claims, saying the product has a miraculous "fat-burning" ingredient that "increases metabolism," "reduces appetite" and "reduces excess water." The companies also falsely claim that SlimQuick is "made with safe and natural ingredients" and is "not harmful," the plaintiffs allege. SlimQuick weight-loss supplements cause liver injury, class action alleges The plaintiffs allege the companies' claims are misleading because none of the ingredients in SlimQuick, individually or in combination, safely and effectively increase weight loss, calorie burning or fat oxidation. In addition, they allege the companies' representations that SlimQuick is "made with safe and natural ingredients" and is "not harmful to our bodies" are false, as SlimQuick contains a dangerous amount of green tea extract, which can cause liver injury and liver failure. The plaintiffs allege the companies' marketing and advertising of SlimQuick was intended to, and did, deceive consumers into believing that the product could effectively increase weight loss, metabolism and decrease appetite. They allege the companies engaged in a consistent, long-term campaign to fraudulently market SlimQuick as a safe and effective weight-loss supplement. The plaintiffs seek to represent anyone who bought SlimQuick in California. They are suing for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. They are seeking certification of the class action, damages of at least $5 million, fees, costs and a jury trial. In other weight-loss news, consumers recently sued Hims & Hers, alleging the company falsely advertised its compounded semaglutide products as equivalent to Ozempic and Wegovy. The plaintiffs are represented by Gregory S. Weston of The Weston Firm. The SlimQuick class action lawsuit is Nelson, et al. v. Platinum US Distribution Inc., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00696, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] PORTLAND LEATHER: Dalton Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORTLAND LEATHER GOODS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02024 (D. Minn., March 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.portlandleathergoods.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Portland Leather Goods LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com POWERFLEET INC: Heiting Sues Over Data Broker Software Installation ------------------------------------------------------------------- JANE HEITING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWERFLEET, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02768 (C.D. Cal., March 16, 2026), accuses the Defendant of violating California's Trap and Trace Law. The Defendant has allegedly installed and deployed data broker software on its website --https://www.mixtelematics.com/us -- to secretly collect data about visitors to the website, their devices and locations, and the pages they've navigated to, to identify who they are, target them with unwanted marketing and track them on an ongoing basis. Headquartered in New Jersey, Powerfleet, Inc. sells hardware and software (including platforms) and management services to proprietors or businesses in such industries as mining, oil and gas, security and government. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: eshapiro@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com PURPOSEBUILT BRANDS: Kalayci Sues Over Products' Deceptive Labels ----------------------------------------------------------------- KATHY KALAYCI and MARK RAPPAPORT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. P.F. HARRIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC and PURPOSEBUILT BRANDS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02827 (N.D. Ill., March 13, 2026) arises from Defendants' alleged deceptive labeling of its Safe Melt product, salt used to melt ice and snow off entryways, sidewalks, driveways, and yards. To appeal to consumers' significant preference for pet-friendly products, the Defendants place a large red graphic on the front of all Safe Melt containers that calls the product "Pet Safe." However, unbeknownst to the consumers, Safe Melt is not safe for pets because it is composed entirely of magnesium chloride, which can cause gastrointestinal irritation, diarrhea, bloody vomiting, respiratory depression, kidney failure, and cardiac arrest to pets that eat it, lick it, or groom their paws after walking over it, says the suit. Headquartered in Gurnee, IL, PurposeBuilt Brands, Inc. manufactures, distributes and/or sells specialty cleaning and disinfection products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. John J. Frawley, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com jfrawley@flsalaw.com RENU REAL: Shaffer Alleges Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIE-PIERRE C. SHAFFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENU REAL ESTATE FL, LLC d/b/a "RENU Property Mgt Florida LLC," Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00717 (M.D. Fla., March 18, 2026) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Judge Thomas P. Barber, and referred to Magistrate Amanda Arnold Sansone. RENU Real Estate FL, LLC d/b/a "RENU Property Mgt Florida LLC," is engaged in the property management industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Murphy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY 440 Premier Circle, Suite 240 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (954) 763-8660 Facsimile: (954) 763-8607 Email: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com RUSTIC & MAIN: Nonato Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE NONATO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Rustic & Main LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-3218 (N.D. Ill., March 23, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://rusticandmain.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Nonato and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Nonato's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Jose Nonato attempted to complete a purchase on the Website on January 12, 2026. However, as he attempted to navigate the Website and proceed with his purchase, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that hindered his ability to browse the Website and complete the transaction. The Website contains access barriers that deny him full and equal access. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Nonato and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations. Nonato seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Jose Nonato is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Rustic & Main LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, a variety of handcrafted wedding bands and engagement rings for men and women, including rings made from wood, antler, meteorite, titanium, gold, gemstones, and floral or guitar string inlays, as well as custom ring design services, ring sizing kits, and ring boxes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law RUSTIC & MAIN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Nonato Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE NONATO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Rustic & Main LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03218 (N.D. Ill., March 23, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://rusticandmain.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Nonato and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Nonato's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Jose Nonato attempted to complete a purchase on the Website on January 12, 2026. However, as he attempted to navigate the Website and proceed with his purchase, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that hindered his ability to browse the Website and complete the transaction. The Website contains access barriers that denied him full and equal access. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Nonato and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Nonato seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Jose Nonato is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Rustic & Main LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, a variety of handcrafted wedding bands and engagement rings for men and women, including rings made from wood, antler, meteorite, titanium, gold, gemstones, and floral or guitar string inlays, as well as custom ring design services, ring sizing kits, and ring boxes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law SANTA CLARA: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Modad Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- AMIN MODAD, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-02491 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2026) is a collective and class action seeking relief on a collective basis challenging Defendants' policy and practice of failing to accurately record all hours worked, and failing to properly pay for all hours worked, including overtime compensation. The complaint relates that Named Plaintiff and the FLSA Collection are similarly situated, have performed substantially similar duties for Defendants, and are uniformly subject to and are currently being subjected to Defendants' uniform, class-wide payroll practices, including the policy and practice of deducting time for non-compliant meal periods. The complaint alleges that Defendants have engaged in an unlawful pattern and practice of failing to pay employees for all compensable work performed by such employees at the proper rate of pay, including minimum wage and overtime pay, in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. This action seeks damages resulting from Defendants' failure to properly compensate employees who perform field-based work in support of Defendants' light rail operations, under the control of Defendants' Operations Control Center ("OCC"), and for whom Defendants deducted at least 30 minutes of pay for a meal period on at least one occasion ("Field Employees"). The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensation for all uncompensated work, liquidated and/or other damages as permitted by applicable law, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Amin Modad is employed as a Signal Maintainer by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Defendant Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority provides bus, light rail, and paratransit services, as well as participate as funding partners in regional rail service including Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, and the Altamont Corridor Express. Does 1-50 are the Defendants with fictitious names.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Aaron Brock, Esq. Joseph D. Parsons, Esq. BROCK & GONZALES, LLP CLAYTON | BRANDES 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 294-9595 Facsimile: (310) 961-3673 E-mail: ab@brockgonzales.com jp@brockgonzales.com SEAWORLD PARKS: Gay Sues Over Deceptive Unsolicited Spam Emails --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN GAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01700-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal., March 18, 2026) alleges violations of the Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act, and Washington's Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant knowingly and willingly engaging in the unlawful practice of advertising in false and deceptive unsolicited commercial e-mails ("spams"). SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. operates as a theme park and entertainment company. The Company offers roller coasters, thrill rides, water park, animal performances, shows, and live concerts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Cole, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 861-7797 Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com SEEL INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Shipping Insurance in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Seel, Inc. has, for years, illegally sold shipping insurance to consumers despite being unadmitted as an insurer in California as required under state law. The 25-page lawsuit contends that the "Worry-Free Delivery" service offered by Seel, an AI-powered insurance company founded in 2019 that partners with more than 2,000 global ecommerce retailers, meets the definition of insurance under California law, meaning the company is subject to the state's Insurance Code. However, the case says that Seel's Worry-Free Delivery service, which purportedly covers the cost if an item is lost, damaged or stolen, is not worth the price paid by consumers because the company is not an admitted, authorized insurer in California. "If Plaintiff and Class members had been aware that Seel's shipping insurance was unlawful, they wouldn't have purchased it at all," the complaint reads. The filing takes issue with Seel's apparent noninvolvement with the California Insurance Guarantee Association, which requires insurers to pay a percentage (typically two percent) of their premium to the association into a guarantee fund that pays out all unresolved claims should a company go under, the suit explains. The case claims that the purported insurance policies offered by Seel for online retail purchases are not backed by the assurances and benefits of legitimate insurance products codified under law and designed to ensure consumer protection. "Unlicensed insurance companies do not pay into the fund, and as such, there is no way for policyholders to recover unpaid claims from such companies," the lawsuit states. Seel's shipping insurance protections, if the company was an accredited insurer, would presumably be designated as forms of "marine insurance" under the California Insurance Code, which protects against loss or damage of goods during navigation, transit or transportation. However, because Seel is not recognized or admitted as an insurer in the state, the company illegally enriches itself by charging "unfettered" rates for its services without the legal backing upheld by California marine insurance law for products shipped anywhere in the United States, the complaint alleges. "If a consumer purchases insurance from an unlicensed insurer, the consumer will have fewer or even no protections if that insurer becomes insolvent," the filing describes. "Therefore, a consumer is faced with substantially higher risks if they purchase from an unlicensed insurer rather than a licensed one—especially when that unlicensed insurer is a startup company funded by venture capital like Seel." According to the complaint, a reasonable consumer would have no meaningful way to discern that Seel is not a legally operating marine insurance provider, as the company uses the same language, policies and business model as actual insurers. This mimicry, the case alleges, is evident as consumers are offered Seel's shipping insurance by its retail partners, navigate the "insurance policies" offered on its website, or even when initiating the process to submit a "claim" after an issue occurs during shipping. "Based on counsel's investigation, Seel has simply provided self-insurance to itself," the lawsuit says. "Seel Insurance, Inc. is merely a wholly owned subsidiary of Seel and is a captive insurance company that only provides insurance to Seel, not to consumers." The Seel class action lawsuit seeks to represent all consumers in the United States who purchased Seel's "Worry-Free Delivery" or other shipping insurance products during the applicable limitations period. [GN] SERITAGE GROWTH: Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Seritage Growth Properties disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Maryland stayed the consolidated shareholder derivative suit until resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Action. The Company is involved in multiple shareholder derivative actions that allege the same or similar claimed acts and omissions underlying the Securities Action. On or around January 15, 2025, a purported shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, captioned Paul Sidhu v. Seritage Growth Properties, Case No. 1:25-cv-00152 (the Sidhu Derivative Action). On or around January 20, 2025, another purported shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, captioned James Wallen v. Seritage Growth Properties, Case No. 1:25-cv-00190 (the Wallen Derivative Action). The derivative actions assert breach of fiduciary duty and other claims against the Company's Chief Executive Officer, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, and current and former members of the Company's Board of Trustees, and name the Company as a nominal defendant. Each derivative complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount to be proven at trial, an order directing the Company and the individual defendants to reform and improve the Company's corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution from the individual defendants, an award of costs and expenses to the plaintiff and reasonable attorneys and experts' fees, costs, and expenses, and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. On November 5, 2025, the court in the District of Maryland proceedings consolidated the Sidhu Derivative Action and the Wallen Derivative Action (the Consolidated Derivative Action) and appointed lead counsel. On November 12, 2025, the court in the Consolidated Derivative Action stayed the Consolidated Derivative Action until resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Action. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations in these derivative lawsuits, but there can be no assurance as to the outcomes of these proceedings, and an unfavorable outcome in these or other legal proceedings may have a material effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity of the Company. Seritage Growth Properties is a publicly traded real estate investment trust focused on owning, developing, and redeveloping retail and mixed-use properties across the United States. The Company seeks to create long-term value by repositioning former retail assets into diversified, income-producing real estate. SHOKZ TECHNOLOGY: Rushefsky Sues Over Website's Access Barriers --------------------------------------------------------------- GLEN RUSHEFSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHOKZ TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02348 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.shokz.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: unlabeled buttons, inaccessible controls, missing alternative text, broken Accessible Rich Internet Applications relationships, and unreadable product specifications. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Shokz Technology, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com SYNGENTA CROP: Riles Sues Over Paraquat Herbicide's Health Risks ---------------------------------------------------------------- BERNARD RILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-422 PQT (Del. Super., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for strict product liability and negligence. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately warn consumers of the risk of severe neurological injury caused by chronic, low-dose exposure to Paraquat. As a result of being exposed to Paraquat, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals developed Parkinson's disease, suit says. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC is a manufacturer of crop protection products, doing business in Delaware. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is a subsidiary of the global energy company, Chevron Corporation, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (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 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com TRANSUNION: Fails to Safeguard Sensitive Information, Raskin Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelle Raskin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TransUnion; Trans Union LLC; and Salesforce, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 26-cv-03227 (N.D. Ill., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failing to safeguard sensitive information. The complaint relates that by collecting and storing Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive information, Defendants undertook a duty to safeguard it and avoid increasing the risk of identity theft or fraud. Because Defendants failed to uphold that duty, Plaintiff seeks the present value of identity protection services and other compensatory measures to address the current and future harm stemming from the Data Breach which was discovered on July 30, 2025. After the Data Breach, the threat actor group Shiny Hunters publicly disclosed their infiltration of the TransUnion Companies' Salesforce environment via their dark web site. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' inadequate security and the resulting Data Breach, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer significant injuries, including, but not limited to: (1) loss of privacy; (2) misappropriation of their identity, name, and likeness; (3) fraud and identity theft from the misuse of their stolen Private Information; (4) loss in the value of their Private Information due to the loss of security, confidentiality, and privacy in that the Plaintiff and Class Members lost the ability to control how and where the data is shared; (5) lost value of their Private Information; (6) emotional and mental distress and anguish resulting from the access, theft and posting of their Private Information; (7) lost time, effort and expense responding to and preventing the threats and harm posed by the Data Breach; and (8) a continued substantial and imminent risk of the misuse of their Private Information, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the Class seek all monetary and non-monetary relief allowed by law, including any: economic damages; damages for emotional and mental anguish; nominal damages; enhanced or treble damages available under the law; court costs; reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees. In addition to monetary relief, Plaintiff and Class Members are also entitled to injunctive relief requiring Defendants to, among other things, strengthen their data security systems and monitoring procedures, conduct periodic audits of those systems, and provide lifetime credit monitoring and identity theft insurance to Plaintiff and Class Members. Plaintiff Kelle Raskin is a citizen and resident of Land O Lakes, Florida. Defendant Trans Union LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. Defendant TransUnion, formerly TransUnion Holding Company, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. Defendant Salesforce, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 866-252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Norman E. Seigel, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Rd., Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816-714-7112 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312-621-2000 Facsimile: 312-641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com TRUHEALTH ANCILLARY: Underpays Health Care Staff, Pumphrey Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN PUMPHREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUHEALTH ANCILLARY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01190-CJC (D. Md., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a behavioral health technician in Toledo, Ohio from approximately April 14, 2025 until November 2, 2025. TruHealth Ancillary Services, LLC is a healthcare services provider, headquartered in Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com TYREE OIL: Faces Hubbs Suit Over Alleged Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID HUBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TYREE OIL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-00506-MTK (D. Or., March 16, 2026) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Defendant's failure resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems that Defendant discovered on or about June 28, 2025, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that private information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. As a result of the data breach, the private information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members was stolen, including their names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers/state ID numbers, health insurance information, and health information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings causes of action against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, seeking an award of monetary damages, resulting from Defendant's failure to adequately protect their highly sensitive private information. Tyree Oil, Inc. is a full-service petroleum provider headquartered in Eugene, OR. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. MCNAUL EBEL PLLC One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 389-9332 E-mail: kboyd@mcnaul.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com US BANCORP: Mikesch Files Suit Over Tobacco Surcharge ----------------------------------------------------- DAVID A. MIKESCH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. BANCORP, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01999 (D. Minn., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for imposing discriminatory and punitive health insurance surcharges on employees who use tobacco products without making available a reasonable alternative standard to avoid those surcharges. This lawsuit challenges Defendant's unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" under the U.S. Bank Comprehensive Welfare Benefits Plan (the "Plan") in a manner that violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the implementing regulations. U.S. Bank imposes a tobacco-related premium differential on employees and their covered dependents. Although U.S. Bank purports to offer a reasonable alternative standard in the form of a tobacco cessation program, the program indicates that participants must complete a tobacco cessation program during the prior plan year in order to avoid the surcharge for the upcoming year. Participants who fail to do so before the plan year begins remain subject to the surcharge, even if they subsequently complete the cessation program during the plan year itself. In those circumstances, U.S. Bank provides only prospective relief while denying any retroactive reimbursement of amounts already paid. This violates ERISA because it conditions access to the reward on completion of the alternative standard prior to the period at issue and fails to make the full premium differential available to participants who satisfy the alternative standard during the Plan year, asserts the complaint. Further, U.S. Bank's materials fail to comply with the notice requirements governing outcome-based wellness programs, the complaint adds. The benefit guides and summary plan descriptions do not include the required disclosure informing participants of the availability of a reasonable alternative standard, do not provide adequate contact information for obtaining such an alternative, and do not advise participants that a physician's recommendation may be accommodated as an alternative means of qualifying for the reward. These omissions independently render the tobacco surcharge noncompliant under applicable law, the complaint relates. Plaintiff David Mikesch is an employee of Defendant, who paid a $30 biweekly premium differential under the Plan as a result of his wife being a smoker. He was required to pay higher premium contributions under the Plan as a result of Defendant's tobacco-related premium differential and its administration of a non-compliant wellness program. U.S. Bancorp is a publicly-traded financial services company with its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It exercised discretionary authority and control over the design and administration of the Plan, including the determination and collection of participant premium contributions and the implementation of tobacco-related premium differentials, and therefore acted as a plan fiduciary within the meaning of ERISA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave., Ste. 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Oren Faircloth, Esq. William H. Payne, Esq. James T. Catania, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Main: (929) 677-5181 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com E-mail: wpayne@sirillp.com E-mail: jcatania@sirillp.com VALVE CORPORATION: Galas Files Suit Over Unlawful Loot Box Profits ------------------------------------------------------------------ IVAN GALAS and ROBERT BROGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VALVE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00995 (W.D. Wash., March 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for generating ill-gotten profits from its unlawful loot box system, in violation of the Gambling statute and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. This action is brought under Washington law -- the state where Valve is headquartered and from which it operates its loot box system -- on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers who have purchased loot box keys and lost money gambling on Valve's games. The complaint relates that Valve launched the Steam platform, which enabled consumers to directly purchase and download Valve games. Valve later expanded Steam to allow the distribution and sale of PC desktop games published by other companies, collecting a 30% commission on the sale of most third-party games. Steam has grown to become the dominant platform for purchasing, maintaining, and playing PC desktop games, commanding an estimated 74% market share for the distribution of PC desktop games as of 2024. According to the complaint, the virtual items distributed through Valve's loot boxes are not tokens with value only inside a game. They are items that can be -- and routinely are -- bought and sold for real money. That is not an accident. Valve deliberately designed both its games and its platform to create and sustain a real-money market for these items. Users can fund their Steam accounts using credit cards, PayPal, or funds stored in a digital wallet called the Steam Wallet. Users can add funds to their Steam Wallet with credit cards or with digital or physical Steam gift cards, which are available at retail stores such as Best Buy. Every dollar deposited in a user's Steam Wallet has the equivalent purchasing power of one dollar on the Steam platform. As a direct and proximate result of Valve's operation of its loot box gambling games, Plaintiffs and each member of the Class lost money by purchasing keys to open loot boxes and receiving virtual items worth less than the price paid, says the suit. The Plaintiffs, therefore, seek recovery of all money lost at gambling, damages for violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and restitution for unjust enrichment. Within the last three years, Plaintiffs Galas and Robert Brogan maintained a Steam account, purchased loot box keys from Valve, and opened loot boxes in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and Counter-Strike 2. They purchased loot boxes and keys, and lost money by purchasing keys to open loot boxes and receiving virtual items worth less than the price of the keys. Defendant Valve Corporation is a video game developer and distributor that operates Steam, the dominant platform for purchasing and playing PC desktop games, which as of January 2026 had an estimated 132 million monthly active users and 69 million daily users, and commanded an estimated 74% market share for PC game distribution.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Moses Jehng, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com moses.jehng@hbsslaw.com - and - Ben Harrington, Esq. Rio S. Pierce, Esq. Roxana Moussavian, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: benh@hbsslaw.com riop@hbsslaw.com roxana.moussavian@hbsslaw.com VERTEX INC: Faces Lynch Class Suit Over Data Security Failures -------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY LYNCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERTEX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01648 (E.D. Pa., March 13, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifying information. On or about March 9, 2026, the notorious ransomware group ShinyHunters posted on its leak site that it had infiltrated Vertex's cybersecurity systems and claimed to have stolen over two million records containing PII. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injuries including (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) lost or diminished value of PII; (iii) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the data breach; (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; and (vi) the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII. Vertex is a publicly traded Pennsylvania-based technology company that provides tax-related products and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Brian J. Devall, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com bdevall@ahdootwolfson.com WALMART INC: Loubaton Sues Over Unlawful Sales Tax Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- AUDREY LOUBATON, individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., d/b/a WALMART, WM SUPERCENTERS, SAM’S CLUB, WALMART DISCOUNT STORES, and WALMART NEIGHBORHOOD MARKETS, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-21675-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 13, 2026) seeks to address Defendant's systematically misrepresenting, charging and collecting amounts represented to be Florida sales and use tax for purchases of tax-exempt baby and toddler products in their Florida stores. Despite Florida’s explicit sales tax exemption for baby and toddler products, the Defendants continue to overcharge Florida consumers, collecting a 7% surcharge purported to be Florida sales tax applicable to purchases of Baby and Toddler Products. Accordingly, the said systematic miscalculation and overcharge violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Moreover, the Plaintiff separately alleges that defendant WALMART STORES is further liable under common law claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, unconscionability, conversion, negligent misrepresentation and negligence. Headquartered in Bentonville, AR, Walmart Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 3833 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33713 Telephone: (813) 786-8622 E-mail: jcohen@brysonpllc.com - and - David J. Tayar, Esq. TAYAR SHUMAN & ASSOCIATES LLP 3324 Parsons Blvd., Ste. 3F Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (917) 750-7740 E-mail: dtayar@tayarshuman.com - and - Will Shuman, Esq. TAYAR SHUMAN & ASSOCIATES LLP 3605 Tuckerman Lane Rockville, MD 20852 Telephone: (202) 415-8207 E-mail: wshuman@tayarshuman.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12061 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - James R. DeMay, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (704) 941-4648 E-mail: jdemay@brysonpllc.com - and - Charles Schimmel, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI PLLC 1800 Gaylord Denver, CO 80206 Telephone: (913) 634-6762 E-mail: schimmelc@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Scott E. Silberfein, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (914) 356-0061 E-mail: silberfeins@thesultzerlawgroup.com WE MAKE MOVIES: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Moore-Pryor Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDASCHA MOORE-PRYOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WE MAKE MOVIES, INC., a California Corporation; SAMUEL A. MESTMAN, an individual; and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03129 (C.D. Cal., March 23, 2026) is a class and collective action seeking unpaid wages, damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees as well as reimbursement of costs and such other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances. According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff during the week ending March 25, 2023. The wages were due on or before Thursday, March 30, 2023, but no paycheck was even prepared until on or after April 12, 2023. Plaintiff worked for at least 9.95 hours, but was not paid any premium rest break wage for either day. No premium rest break wages were paid at all to any worker, despite the fact that on no day of more than four hours work, neither Plaintiff nor any other member of the production crew was provided any rest breaks, at all. Plaintiff was entitled to at least two uninterrupted rest breaks of at least ten minutes, each day. These were not provided. Plaintiff should have been paid a premium Rest Break wage for her day of work. The illegal policies of Defendants routinely result in tardy payment of wages owing the crew members. These policies of Defendants include failing to devote sufficient capital to the payroll accounting function. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class, which claims all arise from the same general operative facts, namely, Defendants did not compensate their employees as required by the Code and applicable Wage Order. Plaintiff Andascha Moore-Pryor is a resident of the State of California, routinely working within the County of Los Angeles. Defendant WE MAKE MOVIES, INC. operates as a temporary services employer and has acted as an employing unit which contracts with client financier[s] to supply workers to perform services for various motion pictures, including, with respect to MOORE-PRYOR, a "Project" designated as "THE BIG PICTURE". Defendant Samuel A. Mestman is a resident of California who conducted business within the County of Los Angeles, State of California and produced at least one motion picture project, hiring temporary workers such as Plaintiff as cast and crew. DOE 1 through 10 are the fictitiously named Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. Min Ji Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor Glendale California 91203 Telephone: 323.962.3777 Facsimile: 323.962.3004 E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com dgarrett@harrisandruble.com pmohan@harrisandruble.com mgal@harrisandruble.com X.AI CORP: Faces Suit Over Grok's Generated Sexual Abuse Material ----------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, a minor, and JANE DOE 3, a minor, Plaintiffs v. X.AI CORP. and X.AI LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-02246 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2026) seeks for civil remedies for personal injuries suffered as a result of violations of Chapters 77 and 110 of Title 18 of the United States Code, for claims brought under California State law and the common law. xAI allegedly released Grok, a generative artificial intelligence model with image- and video-making features that would respond to prompts to create sexual content with a person's real image or video. The Plaintiffs are three of the minor victims of xAI's knowing production, possession, and distribution of AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM) depicting Plaintiffs. Their lives have been shattered by the devastating loss of privacy, dignity, and personal safety that the production and dissemination of this CSAM have caused, says the suit. Headquartered in Palo Alto, CA, X.AI Corp. is a Nevada corporation that focuses on artificial intelligence, social media and technology. The company owns the generative AI model known as Grok and the image- and video-generator Grok Imagine. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Annika K. Martin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: akmartin@lchb.com - and - Mark P. Chalos, Esq. Betsy A. Sugar, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Ave. S., Suite 1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com bsugar@lchb.com - and - Michelle A. Lamy, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: mlamy@lchb.com - and - Vanessa Baehr-Jones, Esq. BAEHR-JONES LAW PC 4200 Park Boulevard, No. 413 Oakland, CA 94602 Telephone: (510) 500-9634 E-mail: vanessa@advocatesforsurvivors.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***