---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, April 9, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 71

                            Headlines

ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Rodriguez Sues Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharges
ALABAMA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Water Safety Mismanagement
AMAZON DATA: Contributes to Water Contamination, Pearson Alleges
AMAZON WEB: Settles Suit for $20.5MM Over Data Center Pollution
ANTHEM BLUE: McGowan Sues Over Inaccurate Health Provider Network

APRIL SPRING: Wilson Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BANK OF AMERICA: $72.5MM Epstein Class Settlement Gets Prelim OK
BETTER LIVING: Gatoff Sues Over Misleading Food Container Labels
BEYOND INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Promo Emails
BIG 5 SPORTING: Gay Sues Over Deceptive Commercial E-mails

BROWN UNIVERSITY: Court Certifies Suit Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
BURLINGTON STORES: Illegally Charges Florida Sales Tax, Suit Says
CAISSE DE DEPOT: Faces $4.6-Bil. Fintech Workers Class Suit in NZ
CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANTS: Agrees to Settle Breach Suit for $3.8M
CETERA FINANCIAL: Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breaches

COMMERCIAL CONTRACTING: Saleh Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Millwrights
COMPLETE PAYROLL: $2.6MM Settlement Final OK Hearing Set June 25
CONSUMER SAFETY: Peals Sues Over Failure to Secure Network System
DIME BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Randolph Suit Says
ELITE AGENCY: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Nelson Claims

FEDEX CORP: Falode Sues Over Unlawful Tariff-Related Fee Collection
GOSSAMER BIO: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Business Info
GREECE LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Velasquez Suit Says
HIMS & HERS: ClassAction.org Investigates Possible Data Breach
IHG MANAGEMENT: Carpio Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Guyton Suit Over Private Data Breach
IROBOT CORP: Schultz Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
JAGUAR LAND: Page Sues Over MHEV's DC-DC Converter Malfunction
JOLIE SKIN: Clifft Sues Over False Showerhead's Misrepresentations
M&B INTERNATIONAL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

MEIJER DISTRIBUTION: Vera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Suit in Denmark Over Harmful Platforms
META PLATFORMS: Shirazi Sues for Invasion of Privacy
MONBENTO INC: Nonato Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
NAVIA BENEFIT: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Austin Says

NEW ERA ENERGY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
NORTH EAST: Smith Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Drivers & Firefighters
NOURISH INC: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info
OLLY PUBLIC: Rodriguez Sues Over Gummy Rings' Deceptive Labels
PAULA'S CHOICE: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

PENUMBRA INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Boston Scientific
PERPLEXITY AI: Discloses Users' Private Info to 3rd Party, Doe Says
PINTEREST INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 29
POSITIVE BEVERAGE: Garza Sues Over Misleading Product Labels
QUALITY INSIGHTS: Ortiz Seeks Community Health Workers' Unpaid OT

ROKA SPORTS: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Kelly Claims
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Unlawful Diversion of Public Funds
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Collects Website Users' Data, Schallert Says
SOOFER CO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Mislabeled Oil Products
STRYKER CORP: Tanner Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info

SYNEOS HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Investor Class Action
TEVA CANADA: Federal Court Dismisses CAD$5-Bil. Price-Fixing Suit
TOYOTA INDUSTRIES: Settles Defective Forklifts Suit for $299.5MM
UNION BANK: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.4-Mil.
UNITED STATES: Discloses Victim-Identifying Info, Jane Doe Says

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Hoffman Suit Over FLSA Violations
VODAFONE GROUP: Court Orders Split Trial in GBP85-Mil. Suit Claim
WAGNER SPRAY: Sells Defective Power Steamers, Santana Suit Claims
WALMART INC: Agrees to Settle Telecheck Fees Class Suit for $1.85MM
WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS: Grill Brushes Pose Serious Ingestion Hazard

WOUND TECHNOLOGY: Failed to Keep Private Info Secure, Dixon Says

                            *********

ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Rodriguez Sues Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IBELIS RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00149 (E.D. Tenn., March 31, 2026) is a
class action against the Defendant for unlawful surcharge in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
and breach of fiduciary duty.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of charging a tobacco
surcharge under the Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., Health and
Welfare Benefit Plan that unjustly forces certain employees to pay
higher premiums for their health insurance. The Defendant's Plan
does not provide the required reasonable alternative standard, and
even if it did, it has failed to adequately notify employees about
the availability of such an alternative in all its Plan
communications. Consequently, the 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 wellness program. As a result
of the imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory tobacco
surcharge, the Defendant enriched itself at the expense of the
Plan.

Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. is a behavioral health company
based in Franklin, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      William H. Payne, IV, Esq.
      Oren Faircloth, Esq.
      James T. Catania, Esq.
      SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
      8 Campus Drive, Suite 105 PMB #161
      Parsippany, NJ 07054
      Telephone: (862) 350-0042
      Email: wpayne@sirillp.com
             ofaircloth@sirillp.com
             jcatania@sirillp.com

ALABAMA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Water Safety Mismanagement
----------------------------------------------------------------
6 WBRC News reports that a Jefferson County ratepayer Thursday,
April 2, filed a class action lawsuit against Central Alabama
Water, its board members and CEO, alleging extreme mismanagement
has jeopardized water safety for more than 770,000 customers.

Jim Hicks filed the complaint in Jefferson County Circuit Court
seeking appointment of an independent receiver to operate the
utility. The lawsuit names CEO Jeffrey F. Thompson and five of the
seven CAW board members.

The complaint alleges the utility halted an $85 million dam
rehabilitation project mid-construction, eliminated its water
quality laboratory, terminated more than 200 employees and
discontinued fluoridation without required state notice.

Dam project halted

According to the lawsuit, CAW issued a stop-work order Jan. 2 on
the Lake Purdy Dam rehabilitation while contractor Thalle
Construction was actively pouring concrete. The dam, built in 1909,
supplies water to approximately 20% of CAW customers.

Thompson sent the directive by email citing funding issues, the
complaint states.

"Central Alabama Water has an employee onsite at the dam every day
of the year, Thompson said in a public statement at the time of the
decision. "That person performs visual inspections, maintains the
operation of the dam and other duties and immediately reports any
concerns to management. We have always monitored weather forecasts
and released water from the reservoir to accommodate potential
heavy rainfall. This is a standard operating procedure for a water
utility that owns and operates reservoirs. The Lake Purdy Dam is
fully intact, and our customers are completely safe."

Thalle Construction issued a public statement expressing concern
about the suspension given the current state of construction,
according to the lawsuit.

Laboratory eliminated, employees terminated

The lawsuit alleges CAW eliminated its entire water quality testing
laboratory and all laboratory staff. The utility announced plans to
outsource water sampling and testing functions previously performed
in-house.

On March 14, Thompson announced the termination of 135 employees,
approximately 23% of the workforce, in a single day. CAW also
eliminated 76 vacant but funded positions, bringing total workforce
reduction to 211 positions.

The lawsuit alleges the layoffs disproportionately affected Black
employees.

Fluoridation discontinued

CAW announced March 20 a systemwide policy to stop adding fluoride
to drinking water, and the lawsuit alleges the utility violated
state law in its notification process, an issue a Jefferson County
judge heard hours of testimony in a separate lawsuit.

That judge announced his intent to dissolve a restraining order
mandating CAW restore fluoride to the water, saying there's no
practical way to force the utility to make the repairs in the 90
day window.

CAW said in court that decision was considered temporary because of
equipment failures dating back several years, until it was made
permanent in March. The utility's new leadership team said in a
court filing their new CFO determined the utility would be
insolvent before September 1, 2026 without significant changes to
its budget and finances.

Infrastructure projects abandoned

The lawsuit alleges CAW halted a $25 million electrical
infrastructure upgrade to the Western Filter Plant, abandoned its
upgrade to the SAP enterprise resource planning system and
eliminated the rollout of an automated meter reading system.

CAW also eliminated its Information Technology department and
announced plans to outsource IT functions without adequate analysis
of risks to data security and billing system integrity, the
complaint states.

Payment options eliminated

The utility eliminated cashier positions and closed public-facing
payment offices, removing the option for ratepayers to pay water
bills in person with cash, according to the lawsuit.

CAW now requires customers to pay online, by phone, by mail or at
Walmart, and the complaint says that adds an expense to customers.

Credit downgrade

S&P Global downgraded CAW's bond rating Feb. 11 from AA to AA --
and placed the utility on CreditWatch Negative, signaling at least
a 50% probability of a further downgrade within 90 days -- citing
declining liquidity, aging infrastructure and substantial
management reorganization as factors in the downgrade.

Fiduciary duty claims

The complaint alleges the individual defendants breached fiduciary
duties of care and loyalty owed to ratepayers.

The lawsuit seeks appointment of a receiver with authority to
manage operations, resume the dam rehabilitation project, restore
water quality laboratory functions and ensure regulatory
compliance. Hicks also seeks compensatory damages, declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief.

Central Alabama Water told WBRC it doesn't comment on pending
litigation. [GN]


AMAZON DATA: Contributes to Water Contamination, Pearson Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PEARSON, JAMES SUTER, SILVIA SUTER, ROSA CAVASOS, JEFFREY
FLEMING, and JON HALEY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON DATA SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00633-HL (D. Ore., March 31, 2026) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, negligence, trespass, and private
nuisance.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged contribution to
nitrate contamination in Morrow and Umatilla counties in Oregon.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's industrial processes
generate millions of gallons of high-nitrate wastewater every year
and rather than properly discarding this wastewater, the Defendants
sends it to the Port of Morrow, a port authority that runs an
industrial wastewater treatment and disposal system, even though
the Defendant knows the Port routinely violates the permit that
governs its wastewater disposal. The Plaintiffs seek to hold the
Defendant accountable for its role in contributing to this
pollution. The Plaintiffs and other Class members should not be
required to tolerate continued exposure to contaminated water or to
bear the cost of obtaining non-polluted water, suit says.

Amazon Data Services, Inc. is a cloud computing company based in
Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
      Michael A. Bliven, Esq.
      BLIVEN LAW FIRM, PC
      704 S. Main
      Kalispell, MT 59901
      Telephone: (406) 755-6828
      Facsimile: (406) 755-6829
      Email: mike@blivenlawfirm.com
  
              - and -

      Robert F. Dwyer, III, Esq.
      BLIVEN LAW FIRM, PC
      202 North Main Street, Suite 1
      Boardman, OR 97818
      Telephone: (406) 755-6828
      Facsimile: (406) 755-6829
      Email: rdwyer@blivenlawfirm.com
  
              - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Meredith S. Simons, Esq.
      Syndey Thomas, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
             merediths@hbsslaw.com
             sydneyt@hbsslaw.com
  
              - and -

      John Heenan, Esq.
      HEENAN & COOK
      1631 Zimmerman Trail
      Billings, MT 59102
      Telephone: (406) 839-9091
      Facsimile: (406) 839-9092
      Email: john@lawmontana.com

AMAZON WEB: Settles Suit for $20.5MM Over Data Center Pollution
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Dorisca, writing for Yahoo Finance, reports that Amazon
Web Services, Inc. has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit
regarding its data centers in Eastern Oregon.

According to Rolling Stone, in partnership with the Food &
Environment Reporting Network, the lawsuit centered on the Lower
Umatilla Basin, where up to 45,000 residents rely on groundwater
for drinking water in Morrow County and surrounding areas. The
water has been examined by Oregon's Department of Environmental
Quality, with samples being collected since 1991. That collection
has shown a steady increase in nitrates, which can negatively
impact newborns and put people at risk for cancer, the outlet
noted.

The increase occurred before Amazon's data centers arrived,
primarily from chemical fertilizer runoff at nearby mega farms and
food processing plants. However, data centers have significantly
accelerated the increase due to the amount of water used to cool
server equipment, moving the nitrates into the groundwater at a
higher rate, per Rolling Stone. The lawsuit claims "that millions
of gallons of wastewater from [Amazon's] data centers and
operations of other parties' facilities in the Lower Umatilla Basin
Groundwater Management Area ("LUBGWMA") in Morrow and Umatilla
Counties in Oregon contribute to nitrate pollution in the
groundwater in the LUBGWMA," according to a circulating notice.

Amazon has denied "each and every one of the allegations of
wrongful conduct and damages by Plaintiffs, including, without
limitation, that ADS has contributed to any alleged contamination
of groundwater, surface water, or drinking water in or around the
[Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area]," the filing
states.

While Amazon denies the allegations, it has agreed to settle the
class action lawsuit to avoid a long legal battle and to "focus our
time and resources on supporting the community rather than on
litigation," Kylee Yonas, an Amazon spokesperson, said, according
to Oregon Capital Chronicle.

Amazon has agreed to settle the lawsuit for $20.5 million, which
will need to be approved by a court, per the outlet.

"It seems like a drop in the bucket," Kathy Mendoza, a local
resident, told Rolling Stone. "That money won't go that far when
you consider how vast that problem is."

Mendoza, who suffers from a debilitating joint and muscle
condition, attributes her condition to the nitrates, according to
the outlet. [GN]

ANTHEM BLUE: McGowan Sues Over Inaccurate Health Provider Network
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER McGOWAN and KAREN MURPHY-ACOSTA on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE
AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-at-00516
(E.D. Cal., March 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant
for its misrepresentations, misstatements, and omissions by
Defendant regarding their supposedly robust behavioral health
provider network and the behavioral health benefits purportedly
available to those, like Plaintiffs, who enrolled in Defendant's
health insurance and have used Defendant's insurance services.

Plaintiff Heather McGowan is a resident of Sacramento County,
California. Ms. McGowan, her husband, and their children are
enrolled in Anthem's PPO Prudent Buyer Classic plan. Plaintiff
Karen Murphy-Acosta is a resident of Orange County, California. She
and her daughter were members of the PERS Gold PPO plan from May
12, 2022 to December 31, 2024.

The Plaintiffs' insurance policies claim to cover behavioral health
care with a robust network of available behavioral health providers
made available by Defendant. In reality, that network is
threadbare: there are very few behavioral health providers in
California who actually take the insurance, are in-network, and
accept new patients. Thus, the promised coverage is largely
non-existent. The failure by an insurance company or health care
service plan to have an adequate network to meet members' needs is
itself a violation of federal and state network adequacy laws, says
the suit.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant engages in deceptive
business practices by knowingly publishing an inaccurate and
misleading provider directory. It does so for several reasons: 1) a
robust provider network is attractive to potential customers; 2) a
seemingly robust directory of providers gives Defendant the
appearance of compliance with state and federal network adequacy
laws (without the costs associated with creating and maintaining an
adequate network and accurate directory); and 3) when members
forego care after a time-consuming and frustrating provider search,
Defendant does not have to pay for the care they would have
received. By publishing a provider directory in which the vast
majority of providers do not exist, no longer practice, are not
actually in-network with Defendant, are not accepting new patients,
and/or have other inaccurate information listed, Defendant actively
harms its members. When Defendant misrepresents its network,
members like Plaintiffs pay inflated premiums for an insurance plan
that does not actually offer an adequate provider network to meet
their needs. Many members, like Plaintiffs, have no choice but to
utilize out-of-network doctors, incurring thousands of dollars in
expenses, adds the complaint.

Pursuant to the California Civil Code, Plaintiffs and Class members
seek an injunction to bar Defendant from continuing its deceptive
practices; and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs
also seek damages for Defendant's violations of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA).

Defendant Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company is a
stock corporation registered to do business in California. It
provides administrative services to members of the CalPERS Gold PPO
plan (the "PERS Gold plan") and the California's Valued Trust PPO
Prudent Buyer Classic plan (the "CVT Prudent Buyer plan") but does
not function as the health insurance provider of those plans
because they are self-funded, meaning the entities providing the
insurance–CalPERS and California's Valued Trust–are themselves
the insurers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ben Travis, Esq.
     BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC
     12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Telephone: (619) 353-7966
     E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com

          – and –

     Steve Cohen, Esq.
     POLLOCK COHEN LLP
     111 Broadway, Suite 1804
     New York, NY 10006
     Telephone: (212) 337-5361
     E-mail: Scohen@PollockCohen.com

          – and –

     Jacob Gardener, Esq.
     WALDEN MACHT HARAN & WILLIAMS LLP
     250 Vesey St., 27th Floor
     New York, NY 10281
     Telephone: (212) 335-2965
     E-mail: jgardener@wmhwlaw.com

APRIL SPRING: Wilson Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. APRIL SPRING DESIGNS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:26-cv-03468 (N.D. Ill., March 30, 2026) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when he
attempted multiple times, most recently on August 5, 2025, to
access Defendant's Website from his home in an effort to shop for
Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied his full
and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and
services.

The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and
screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited
to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly
formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for
interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.

Plaintiff HOWARD WILSON is a visually-impaired and legally blind
person who requires screen-reading software to read website content
using the computer.

Defendant APRIL SPRING DESIGNS, LLC is a company that owns and
operates www.foxers.com that offers underwear, loungewear,
sleepwear, and lingerie, including a dedicated men's boxer brief
collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     STEIN SAKS, PLLC
     One University Plaza, Suite 620
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
     Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
     E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

BANK OF AMERICA: $72.5MM Epstein Class Settlement Gets Prelim OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luc Cohen of Reuters reports that a U.S. judge granted preliminary
approval on Thursday, April 2, to Bank of America Corp.'s (BAC.N)
$72.5 million settlement with women who accused the bank of
facilitating their sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan scheduled an August 27
hearing to consider final approval.

David Boies, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he expected between
60 and 75 victims to submit claims. The victims are mainly based in
the United States or Eastern Europe, he said.

The plaintiffs' lawyers may seek up to 30% of the settlement, or
about $21.8 million, for legal ⁠fees.

Rakoff said it was important for Epstein's victims to be
compensated by anyone that unlawfully facilitated his sex
trafficking, but that not everyone associated with him should be
held liable.

"It's not fair to penalize those persons or entities that were
drawn into his wide orbit but had no role in assisting or
benefiting from his egregious misconduct," Rakoff said, without
referring to specific people or entities.

"I do want to just keep everyone on notice that I continue to
scrutinize this until the moment of final settlement," the judge
said.

SETTLEMENT AGREED IN MARCH

Epstein died in a Manhattan jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting
trial on sex trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide by
New York City's ⁠medical examiner.

The proposed class action, filed in October by a woman using the
pseudonym Jane Doe, accused the second-largest U.S. bank of
ignoring suspicious financial transactions related to Epstein
despite a "plethora" of information about his crimes because it
valued profit over protecting victims.

Rakoff ruled in January that Bank of America must face Doe's claims
that it knowingly benefited from Epstein's sex trafficking and
obstructed ⁠enforcement of the federal Trafficking Victims
Protection Act.

In agreeing to settle the civil lawsuit in March, Bank of America
said it did not facilitate sex trafficking crimes. It said the
resolution would allow it to move on and provide closure for the
accusers.

JPMORGAN, ⁠DEUTSCHE BANK ALSO SETTLED

Boies and Bradley Edwards, another lawyer for the plaintiffs, said
the settlement was the best option for their clients because they
suffered harm many years ago and need financial relief now.

Doe's lawyers have also sued other alleged enablers ⁠of Epstein's
sex trafficking, and in 2023 reached settlements of $290 million
with JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N) and $75 million with Deutsche Bank
(DBKGn.DE) on behalf of his accusers.

The lawyers are also appealing Rakoff's dismissal in January of a
similar lawsuit they brought against Bank of New York Mellon
(BK.N). [GN]

BETTER LIVING: Gatoff Sues Over Misleading Food Container Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHERYL GATOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. BETTER LIVING BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 5:26-cv-01427 (C.D. Cal., March 25, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendant for its deceptive marketing and sale of
Signature Select reusable food storage containers (the
"Products").

According to the complaint, the Defendant has marketed and sold the
Products with labeling and packaging that leads consumers to
believe that the Products can be safely washed in the dishwasher.
The Defendant misled consumers into buying the Products based on
the Dishwasher Safe Representation when, in reality, they are only
dishwasher safe if washed on the top rack. Hidden on the back
label, in small, nondescript font, is Defendant's admission that
the Products are only "safe for use in the … dishwasher (top
shelf)." Defendant deceptively advertises the Products in order to
exploit strong consumer sentiment for food containers that can be
conveniently washed in the dishwasher.

The Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the Products because
they reasonably believed that the products are dishwasher safe. Had
Plaintiff and other consumers known that the Products are only for
the top rack, they would not have purchased them or would have paid
significantly less for them. As a result, Plaintiff and other
consumers have been deceived and have suffered economic injury,
adds the complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually, and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals who purchased
the deceptively labeled Products during the statute of limitations
period, for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair
Competition Law, intentional misrepresentation (i.e., common law
fraud), negligent misrepresentation, and quasi contract/unjust
enrichment/restitution. The Plaintiff, on behalf herself and other
similarly situated consumers, seeks damages, restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and all other remedies provided
by applicable law or that this Court deems appropriate.

Plaintiff Sheryl Gatoff purchased the Signature Select Products in
October 2025 at an Albertsons in Rancho Mirage, California.

Defendant Better Living Brands, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company. Its sole member is Safeway, Inc., a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lisa T. Omoto, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (424) 256-2884
     Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
     E-mail: lomoto@faruqilaw.com

BEYOND INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Promo Emails
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that a group of four consumers filed a
class action lawsuit against Beyond Inc., doing business as
Overstock.com.

Why: Overstock allegedly sends marketing emails to Washington
consumers with false or misleading subject lines.

Where: The Overstock class action lawsuit was filed in Washington
state court.

A new class action lawsuit alleges Overstock sends emails to
consumers that contain false or misleading information in the
subject lines in violation of Washington's Commercial Electronic
Mail Act.

Plaintiffs Morgan Crouch, Mallory Santic, Elyse Sparks and Dalana
Brown filed the class action lawsuit against Beyond Inc. on Oct. 27
in Washington state court.

The plaintiffs claim Overstock sends emails with subject lines that
falsely represent unqualified discounts on purchases without
disclosing material exclusions.

The subject lines imply a straightforward percentage discount on
the recipient's entire purchase, such as "15% off your entire
order" or "15% off your purchase," without limitations or
exclusions, enticing consumers to open the email in anticipation of
a broad bargain, the Overstock class action says.

"Upon opening the email, however, the body reveals that there are
significant exclusions that do not qualify for the percentage
discount," the Overstock class action lawsuit claims.

Overstock sends misleading emails to drive sales, class action
alleges

The plaintiffs also claim Overstock sends emails that misstate the
duration of given promotions, in an apparent effort to drive sales
by creating a false sense of urgency.

The subject lines of the emails falsely claim that a certain sale
or discount is limited to a specific time, such as "ends today" or
"ends tonight" or "ends very soon," when, in reality, the offer
lasts longer than advertised or the item has already been on sale
for longer than advertised, the Overstock class action alleges.

"Defendant also uses its preconceived 'sale extensions' as an
excuse to send consumers additional emails purporting to notify
them that a sale is ending or that a sale has been extended," the
class action lawsuit says. "This practice causes consumers' inboxes
to become inflated with spam."

The plaintiffs want to represent anyone residing in Washington who
received Overstock's allegedly misleading emails in the past four
years.

They are suing for violations of Washington's Commercial Electronic
Mail Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act and seeking
certification of the Overstock class action, an injunction,
damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.

Another furniture company, Basset, is facing allegations it has
engaged in a "massive and consistent" false discount advertising
scheme across its website and in its retail stores for years.

The plaintiffs are represented by Cory L. Zajdel and David M.
Trojanowski of Z Law LLC.

The Overstock class action lawsuit is Crouch, et al. v. Beyond Inc.
d/b/a Overstock.com, Case No. 25-2-02400-37, in the Superior Court
of the State of Washington, County of Whatcom. [GN]

BIG 5 SPORTING: Gay Sues Over Deceptive Commercial E-mails
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN GAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS LLC, a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:26-cv-02876 (C.D. Cal., March 18, 2026) seeks for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, due to the illegal actions of Defendant Big 5 Sporting
Goods LLC in engaging in the unlawful practice of advertising in
false and deceptive commercial e-mails in violation of Washington's
Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Washington's Consumer Protection
Act.

Defendant Big 5 misrepresents the length of time sales will be
offered by sending one or more emails stating in the subject line
that a sale is being offered for a specific short period, when in
fact, the sale lasts longer. In addition, The Defendant also
mischaracterizes the nature of its emails or disguises their true
commercial purpose, says the suit.

Headquartered in El Segundo, CA, Big 5 Sporting Goods LLC operates
a sporting goods retailer. [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
        E-mail: kevin@kjclawgroup.com

BROWN UNIVERSITY: Court Certifies Suit Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Craig, J.D., writing for Vital Law, reports that misconduct
by class counsel does not automatically bar class certification.

The federal district court in Chicago will certify a class-action
lawsuit brought by current and former students against 17 elite,
private universities in the "568 Group" alleging financial-aid
price-fixing conspiracy antitrust claims if new counsel can
adequately represent the students. The court concluded that the
students have satisfied all of the requirements for class
certification except for adequacy of counsel. The court held that
misconduct by class counsel concerning statements on fees does not
automatically bar class certification if substitute counsel can
adequately represent the interests of students. To protect the
class and to avoid unfairly prejudicing the class requires bringing
in new lead counsel outside the current group. As such, the court
deferred class certification pending new lead class counsel for the
students (Corzo v. Brown University, No. 1:22-cv-00125 (N.D. Ill.
Mar. 31, 2026)).

Background. In 1998, several universities formed the "568
Presidents Group," which in 2000–2001 developed a "Consensus
Approach to Need Analysis" through a Common Standards Subcommittee,
producing "Core Principles" and a detailed Consensus Methodology
governing how income, assets, home equity, medical expenses, and
other factors would be assessed. The group adopted these standards,
instructed financial-aid offices to implement them beginning with
the 2003 entering class, limited departures to narrow
professional-judgment exceptions, and barred coordination on aid
packaging. In 2022, former and current students filed suit against
17 universities alleging that the universities participated in a
horizontal price-fixing scheme in violation of section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act. The 17 defendant universities include Brown,
Caltech, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Emory,
Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Penn,
Rice, Vanderbilt, and Yale.

In 2024, 10 of the 17 defendant universities settled and agreed to
pay $284 million. Two more universities settled in 2025. The court
has given final approval to $319.5 million in settlements from 12
universities. In seeking approval of settlements, the court later
found that counsel for the students -- Gilbert Litigators &
Counselors, PC ("GLC") -- made false representations to the court
concerning contingency fees. In January 2026, the court denied
competing motions for summary judgment holding that a reasonable
jury could find that the universities engaged in anticompetitive
conduct. The students then moved to certify the class. The
universities opposed the motion to certify the class, arguing that
the misconduct by class counsel bars certification.

Certification. The court held that the students have satisfied all
of the requirements for class certification except for adequacy of
counsel. The proposed class is numerous, which includes
approximately 224,000 students. The commonalty requirement is also
satisfied because the common question is whether the universities
engaged in the alleged conspiracy and determination of its truth or
falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of
each one of the claims.

The proposed class representatives meet the typicality requirement
because they received need-based financial aid from the
universities and the students allege they paid artificially
inflated net prices as a result of the alleged conspiracy. The
named plaintiffs have diligently litigated this case, resulting in
numerous settlements. They have shown that they adequately
represent the interests of the absent class members. Moreover, the
court found common questions of law and fact common to class
members exist because the issues of antitrust impact are common
questions relying on common evidence for the entire class.

Class counsel. The court concluded, however, that the proposed
class counsel does not adequately represent the interest of the
class members. The Seventh Circuit has stated that when class
counsel have demonstrated a lack of integrity, a court can have no
confidence that they will act as conscientious fiduciaries of the
class. The most significant issue -- which did not emerge right
away -- arises from litigation funding arrangement, in particular
the representations to the court claiming that GLC’s work was
done on a "contingent" or "wholly contingent" basis and that its
expense outlays were "unreimbursed." The court found that counsel
for GLC made untruthful and misleading statements that the firm’s
work on this case was performed on a contingent basis.

The court rejected the argument by the universities that misconduct
by class counsel should bar class certification. The court held
that misconduct by class counsel does not automatically bar class
certification, especially where the class already exists and
previous settlements have been reached. Both to protect the class
and avoid unfairly prejudicing the class of former and current
students requires bringing in new lead counsel outside the current
group, the court found. If this is done, and the new counsel is
shown to be adequate, then the court will grant the motion for
class certification and appoint the new counsel as the lead.

If new and adequate lead counsel is not brought in, then the court
will deny the motion for class certification. Therefore, the court
deferred a ruling on the motion for class certification. The court
gave the lead plaintiffs 21 days to file proposed new lead class
counsel to adequately represent the interests of the students.

The Case is No. 1:22-cv-00125.

Judge: Kennelly, M.

Attorneys: Devin 'Velvel' Freedman (Freedman Normand Friedland LLP)
for Andrew Corzo and Sia Henry. Kenneth Michael Kliebard (Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP) for Brown University. Deepti Bansal (Cooley
LLP) for California Institute of Technology.

Companies: Brown University; California Institute of Technology

Cases: Antitrust IllinoisNews [GN]

BURLINGTON STORES: Illegally Charges Florida Sales Tax, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Karin Sandiest filed a
class action lawsuit against Burlington Stores Inc.

Why: Sandquist claims Burlington charged and collected Florida
sales tax on purchases of tax-exempt baby and toddler products.

Where: The Burlington class action lawsuit was filed in Florida
federal court.

A new class action lawsuit claims Burlington Stores illegally
charged and collected Florida sales tax on purchases of tax-exempt
baby and toddler products.

Plaintiff Karin Sandquist argues Burlington charged a 7% surcharge
payment presented as Florida sales tax to customers buying baby and
toddler clothes, shoes and other apparel, despite the products
being exempt from sales tax under Florida law.

Sandquist wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who
were charged sales tax on tax-exempt baby and toddler products at a
Burlington location in Florida from July 1, 2023, to the present.

"Printing on the customer's receipt a line item titled 'Sales Tax
7.000%,' adding a corresponding amount to the subtotal and
collecting such amount is a deceptive and misleading practice
leading customers to believe that a sales tax was owed on Baby and
Toddler Products which were exempt from such taxes," the Burlington
class action lawsuit says.

Baby products exempt from sales tax since July 2022, Burlington
lawsuit claims

Sandquist argues baby and toddler products have been exempt from
Florida sales tax since July 2022, when the state legislature
implemented a sales and use tax exemption for diapers and baby and
toddler clothing, apparel and shoes.

The plaintiff claims the tax exemption was made permanent in 2023
and expanded to include a broader range of baby and toddler
products.

Sandquist alleges Burlington is guilty of fraudulent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of contract,
unconscionability, conversion, negligent misrepresentation and
negligence, and also violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act.

The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and
injunctive relief and an award of actual, compensatory, statutory
and punitive damages for herself and all class members.

In related news, Walmart is currently facing class action
allegations it overcharged consumers for food, baby products,
appliances and other products by charging consumers more than the
price listed on Rollback stickers, price stickers and yellow
stickers.

Have you ever been charged sales tax on tax-exempt products at a
Burlington store? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Jonathan B. Cohen of Bryson Harris
Suciu & DeMay PLLC, David J. Tayar and Will Shuman of Tayar Shuman
& Associates LLP and Jason P. Sultzer, Charles Schimmel and Scott
E. Silberfein of Sultzer & Lipari PLLC.

The Burlington class action lawsuit is Sandquist, et al. v.
Burlington Stores Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-21436, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. [GN]

CAISSE DE DEPOT: Faces $4.6-Bil. Fintech Workers Class Suit in NZ
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits Canada reports that two of Canada's largest pension funds
are named in a US$4.6 billion class action by the employees of a
New Zealand-based software company.

About 200 financial technology workers at FNZ launched a lawsuit
alleging the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec, CPP
Investments and other institutional investors "used their control
of the FNZ board to execute three capital raises in 2024 and 2025
on terms that reduced to near zero the value of shares held by the
employees who built the company," according to a press release.

These allegations haven't been tested in court yet. The employee
group said the High Court of New Zealand scheduled the first public
hearing for this case on May 12, 2026. It also was filed against
FNZ Group itself and 17 of its current and former directors.

CPP Investments first committed 1.1 billion in FNZ back in 2022 as
part of an equity funding transaction. For its part, the Caisse
first invested in the fintech company in 2018.

A report from the Canadian Press noted FNZ said directors have "at
all times acted in the best interests of the company," while its
institutional investors have demonstrated a long-term commitment to
the business.

"While the most recent developments represent a step in the right
direction, we will remain cautious and vigilant against any further
attempts to impede these proceedings, whether in New Zealand or
elsewhere," said Mike Stevens, shareholder and former FNZ employee,
in a statement. [GN]

CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANTS: Agrees to Settle Breach Suit for $3.8M
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Cardiovascular
Consultants has agreed to a $3,850,000 settlement to resolve a
class action lawsuit that alleged the healthcare practice failed to
protect the sensitive information stored on its systems from a data
breach discovered in September 2023.

The $3.85 million Cardiovascular Consultants class action
settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February
24, 2026 and covers all United States residents whose personal
information was potentially compromised in the data breach
discovered by the practice in September 2023, including all who
were sent notice of the incident.

The court-approved website for the Cardiovascular Consultants (CVC)
data breach settlement can be found at CVCDataSettlement.com.

According to the website, CVC settlement class members who file a
valid, timely claim form are eligible for multiple settlement
benefits and may claim as many as they qualify for.

Class members who submit with their claim form documented proof of
out-of-pocket losses stemming from the breach are eligible to
receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement.

The settlement agreement outlines that class members must submit
proof, like receipts, to receive compensation under this benefit,
which covers costs related to identity theft, fraud, obtaining
credit monitoring and/or identity protection services, freezing
credit and any miscellaneous costs, like postage.

Furthermore, class members may file a claim form to receive a
pro-rated cash payment from the deal with no proof required. The
final amount of this payment, the agreement notes, is estimated to
be $75 per class member, but may increase or decrease depending on
the number of valid claims filed.

Class members may receive their settlement payout via check or
electronic payment, and all checks must be cashed within 60 days of
issuance before expiration, the agreement adds.

In addition to one or both cash payments, all CVC settlement class
members may file a claim form to receive an enrollment code for two
free years of Kroll Medical Monitoring.

To file a CVC settlement claim form online, class members can head
to this page and log in using the class member ID 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 settlement administrator at the address
on the first page.

All CVC data breach settlement claim forms must be submitted online
or by mail by July 1, 2026.

Finally, CVC has agreed to implement certain changes to its
information security systems to better protect the data it stores
as part of the settlement.

The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the
Cardiovascular Consultants settlement following a hearing on August
18, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class
members only after final approval is granted and any appeals have
been resolved.

The Cardiovascular Consultants class action lawsuit claimed that
the Arizona-based cardiovascular healthcare provider failed to
enact reasonable cybersecurity measures to safeguard the sensitive
information stored on its systems, which led to a data breach on or
around September 29, 2023. Per court documents, private information
that may have been compromised during the breach includes names,
Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, contact
information, driver's license and state identification numbers,
health insurance information and medical records. [GN]

CETERA FINANCIAL: Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Donachie, writing for Wealth Management, reports that
Cetera Financial and Ameriprise are the latest financial services
firms to face allegations of data breaches detailed in class action
lawsuits brought by customers, calling them to task for allegedly
failing to protect client information.

Meanwhile, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has launched
a new portal for member firms to report cyber threats and
coordinate responses.

The Cetera class action suit was brought by Jennifer Collier, a
California resident, on behalf of all affected clients. According
to the suit, Cetera learned that an unauthorized person gained
access to an unnamed employee's email account last summer.

In January, the firm's review found that some client information
(including names, Social Security numbers and account information)
may have been leaked. Collier alleged Cetera hadn't used
"reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the
nature of the sensitive information" about their customers.

"(Collier) and class members now face years of constant
surveillance of their financial and personal records, monitoring
and loss of rights," the suit read. "The ramifications of Cetera's
failure to keep secure the (personal identifying information) of
(Collier) and class members are long-lasting and severe."

A Cetera spokesperson told Wealth Management the firm does not
comment on legal matters.

In the suit against Ameriprise, Pamela Caffrey brought a class
action on behalf of herself and other customers affected by an
alleged data breach that occurred around March 22.

According to the suit, a cybercriminal network called ShinyHunters
carried out the heist.

ShinyHunters is a digital extortion group that often steals
sensitive information from companies or individuals and threatens
to leak it in exchange for a ransom. ShinyHunters was also
allegedly at the center of the Mercer Advisors data breach reported
by Wealth Management last month.

Caffrey's suit claims that the ransomware allegedly stole
Salesforce records containing personally identifiable client
information and over 200GB of internal corporate data. However,
Caffrey claimed that Amerirpise had failed to notify victims of the
data breach.

"Most, if not all, class members do not know that their private
information had been compromised, and that they continue to be at
significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of
personal, social and financial harm," the suit read. "The risk will
remain for their respective lifetimes."

Caffrey also faulted Ameriprise for not giving any assurances that
the firm recovered or destroyed the client data, or that the firm
"has adequately enhanced its data security practices sufficient to
avoid a similar breach of its network in the future."

According to an Ameriprise spokesperson, the firm experienced "an
incident involving unauthorized access" to some stored data and
files.

"We blocked the unauthorized access, and outside forensic experts
have confirmed this. Importantly, there has been no disruption to
business operations, and clients and advisors have secure access to
our systems and sites," they said. "In any instance when personally
identifiable information (PII) is impacted, we would provide notice
in keeping with our regulatory responsibilities. We're confident
that the PII of the individual who filed the suit was not
impacted."

Ameriprise and Cetera are the latest victims in an ongoing run of
data breaches against financial services firms; other victims
include Mercer, Hightower Advisors, Edelman Financial Engines,
Beacon Pointe Advisors and Pathstone Family Office.

Additionally, FINRA unveiled its latest weapon in the fight against
cyber fraud this week: the Financial Intelligence Fusion Center, a
secure portal for the agency and its member firms to discuss
emerging cyber fraud threats. According to FINRA, the Center will
"collect, analyze and disseminate threat intelligence" to member
firms.

In a blog post last year from FINRA CEO Robert Cook announcing the
new center, it will "leverage internal and external intelligence
sources to provide member firms with actionable insights" on risks,
focusing on supporting "small and mid-sized firms that lack
dedicated intelligence capabilities." [GN]

COMMERCIAL CONTRACTING: Saleh Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Millwrights
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HASSAN SALEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMMERCIAL CONTRACTING CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-11051-MAG-KGA (E.D. Mich., March 31,
2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly
employee with the job title of millwright from approximately
October 2025 to January 2026.

Commercial Contracting Corporation is a contractor, headquartered
in Auburn Hills, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Jesse L. Young, Esq.
       SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC
       141 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
       Kalamazoo, MI 49007
       Telephone: (269) 250-7500
       Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
  
              - and -

       Alana Karbal, Esq.
       SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC
       One Town Square, 17th Floor
       Southfield, MI 48076
       Telephone: (248) 355-0300
       Email: akarbal@sommerspc.com

COMPLETE PAYROLL: $2.6MM Settlement Final OK Hearing Set June 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Complete Payroll Solutions (CPS)
agreed to a $2.6 million class action settlement to resolve claims
it failed to prevent a 2024 data breach that compromised sensitive
employee information.

The Complete Payroll Solutions settlement benefits individuals who
received a data breach notice from Complete Payroll Solutions
regarding a March 2024 data breach.

The Complete Payroll Solutions data breach occurred around March
10, 2024, and compromised sensitive employee information, such as
Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial data
and health insurance information. Plaintiffs in the data breach
class action lawsuit claim the company could have prevented the
breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures.

Complete Payroll Solutions is a payroll and human resources company
that serves businesses across the country.

CPS has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.6 million
settlement to resolve the Complete Payroll Solutions data breach
class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the Complete Payroll Solutions class action
settlement, class members can receive up to $5,000 for documented
monetary losses related to the Complete Payroll Solutions data
breach. These losses can include out-of-pocket credit monitoring
costs, unreimbursed fraud or identity theft losses, bank fees,
communication charges and mileage.

Class members can also receive a cash payment from the settlement.
Each claimant is estimated to receive $100, but this amount may
increase or decrease depending on the number of claims filed with
the class action settlement.

All class members are eligible for three years of credit monitoring
through the settlement. This benefit includes one-bureau credit
monitoring, dark web monitoring, $1 million in identity theft
insurance and fully managed identity recovery services.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 19, 2026.

The final approval hearing for the Complete Payroll Solutions data
breach settlement is scheduled for June 25, 2026.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by June 18, 2026.

Who's Eligible
The class action settlement benefits individuals who received a
notice from Complete Payroll Solutions regarding potential impact
from a data breach discovered in March 2024 or who were otherwise
determined to have potentially had their personal information
compromised by the incident.

Potential Award
Up to $5,000 for documented losses, an estimated $100 payout and
three years of credit monitoring.

Proof of Purchase
Documentation of losses and expenses, such as identity theft
monitoring expenses, credit card statements and phone bills.

Claim Form

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
06/18/2026

Case Name
Dunn, et al. v. Complete Payroll Solutions LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-30045-LTS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts

Final Hearing
06/25/2026

Settlement Website
CPSSettlement.com

Claims Administrator

     Dunn, et al. v. Complete Payroll Solutions LLC
     c/o Kroll Settlement Administration
     P.O. Box 5324
     New York, NY 10150-5324
     833-447-9925

Class Counsel

     Danielle L. Perry
     MASON LLP

     Carl V. Malmstrom
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC

     David K. Lietz
     MILBERG PLLC

Defense Counsel

     Jordan S. O'Donnell
     MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC [GN]


CONSUMER SAFETY: Peals Sues Over Failure to Secure Network System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JERMAINE PEALS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONSUMER SAFETY TECHNOLOGY, LLC d/b/a
INTOXALOCK, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00146-RGE-WPK (S.D. Iowa,
March 31, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for
negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure its
network systems, which allowed unauthorized third parties to cause
service disruptions to the Plaintiff and Class members on March 14,
2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result
of the Defendant's inadequate digital security procedures, the
Plaintiff and Class members have suffered and will continue to
suffer injuries including loss of property, use of their vehicles,
and lost wages.

Consumer Safety Technology, LLC, doing business as Intoxalock, is a
provider of ignition interlock devices, with its principal place of
business in Urbandale, Iowa. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
      Brian O. Marty, Esq.
      SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC
      5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
      West Des Moines, IA 50265
      Telephone: (515) 223-4567
      Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
      Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
             marty@sagwlaw.com
  
              - and -

      Daniel Srourian, Esq.
      SROURIAN LAW FIRM, PC
      468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (213) 474-3800
      Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
      Email: daniel@slfla.com

DIME BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Randolph Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Dime Beauty Co. LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-03057 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2026) arises from the
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website, https://dimebeautyco.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.

The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a
cleansing oil on Defendant's website. Despite her efforts, however,
the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a
sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of
features and accommodations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks
redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims
for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Dime Beauty Co. LLC owns and operates the website which offers
skincare products for sale. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Uri Horowitz, Esq.
         14441 70th Road
         Flushing, NY 11367
         Telephone: (718) 705-8706
         Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
         E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com

ELITE AGENCY: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Nelson Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN NELSON and REBECCA MASSICOTTE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELITE AGENCY LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-11059-RJW-CI (E.D. Mich., March 31,
2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of placing unwanted
calls to the telephone numbers of the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or
services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the
Defendant's action, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered
damages including invasion of privacy, intrusion into daily life,
and annoyance, says the suit.

Elite Agency LLC is a company that sells health insurance products
based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
       PARONICH LAW, PC
       350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
       Hingham, MA 02043
       Telephone: (508) 221-1510
       Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

FEDEX CORP: Falode Sues Over Unlawful Tariff-Related Fee Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OYEKANMI FALODE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FEDEX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:26-cv-02291-SHL-atc (W.D. Tenn., March 18, 2026) seeks
restitution, damages, and equitable relief arising from Defendant
FedEx's unlawful collection of tariff-related fees from Plaintiff
and thousands of similarly situated consumers and businesses
throughout the United States.

Beginning in 2025, the Defendant imposed and collected
tariff-related charges purportedly authorized under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act. On February 20, 2026,
the Supreme Court of the United States held that IEEPA does not
authorize the President to impose tariffs and that such tariffs
were unlawful and imposed without statutory authority. Despite
lacking lawful authority, the Defendant charged, collected, and
retained tariff-related fees from Plaintiff and Class members, says
the suit.

Headquartered in Memphis, TN, FedEx Corporation provides
transportation, e-commerce, and business services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
         Michael Tackeff, Esq.
         STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
         The Freedom Center
         223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Telephone: (615) 254-8801
         E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
                 mtackeff@stranchlaw.com

                 - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP
          980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (872) 263-1100
          E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
                  raina@straussborrelli.com

GOSSAMER BIO: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Business Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Gossamer Bio, Inc. ("Gossamer" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:GOSS) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Gossamer securities between June
16, 2025, and February 20, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until June 1, 2026 to apply to the Court
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Allegation Details:

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
provided investors with material information concerning Gossamer's
Phase 3 PROSERA study evaluating seralutinib for the treatment of
pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Defendants' statements
included, among other things, confidence in PROSERA's trial design.
Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to
investors while, at the same time, disseminating false and
misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts
concerning the study design for the Company's Phase 3 PROSERA
study, particularly, controlling for the placebo response at the
Latin American testing sites. This caused Plaintiff and other
shareholders to purchase Gossamer's securities at artificially
inflated prices.

Next Steps:

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Gossamer shares and suffered
a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, South Carolina, and California. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in securities,
derivative, and commercial litigation as well as individuals in
consumer protection and data privacy litigation. The firm has a
nationwide practice and routinely handles cases in both federal and
state courts. For more information about the firm, please visit
www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

     Brandon Walker, Esq.
     Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
     Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
     (212) 355-4648
     investigations@bespc.com
     www.bespc.com [GN]

GREECE LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Velasquez Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA VELASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. GREECE, LLC, Case  No. 3:26-cv-00290-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La.,
March 18, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly line cook,
from approximately May, 2021 to
February, 2026. The Plaintiff's hours varied from week to week
during their employment with Defendant, but she and the Collective
Members regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. However,
the Plaintiff was only paid straight time for all hours worked and
was not paid an overtime premium for any hours she worked over 40
in the workweek, says the suit.

Greece, LLC operates a Greek and Lebanese restaurant in Gonzales,
LA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Philip Bohrer, Esq.
         Scott E. Brady, Esq.
         BOHRER BRADY, LLC
         8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
         Baton Rouge, LA 70809
         Telephone: (225) 925-5297
         Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
         E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                 scott@bohrerbrady.com

                - and -

         Pablo Isaza, Esq.
         SARDI ISAZA LAW, LC
         10627 Hillary Court
         Baton Rouge, LA 70810
         Telephone: (225) 223-6300
         Facsimile: (225) 960-2645
         E-mail: pablo@sardi-isaza.com

HIMS & HERS: ClassAction.org Investigates Possible Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Hims & Hers data
breach.

As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals
who had their information exposed in the incident, including those
who received notice of the Hims & Hers data breach or otherwise
believe they are affected.

Hims & Hers Security Incident: What Happened?

Hims & Hers, a telehealth provider with over 2.4 million
subscribers, reported a data breach involving unauthorized access
to its third-party customer service platform. Hims & Hers' own
electronic records system was not compromised.

According to Hims & Hers' 2025 Annual Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the breach involved a social
engineering attack on two employees. A sample notice provided to
the California Attorney General's Office states that unauthorized
access to the customer service platform was first discovered on
February 5, 2026. An investigation into the incident concluded that
access to service tickets occurred from February 4 to February 7,
2026.

A review of the affected service tickets confirmed that personal
information, including names, email addresses, phone numbers, and
physical addresses, was compromised.

Additionally, for those who contacted customer service between
mid-February 2025 and February 2026, data on treatment categories
and other information from their communications with customer
service may have been accessed.

What You Can Do After the Hims & Hers Data Breach

If your information was exposed in the Hims & Hers data breach,
attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class
action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time
spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.

A successful case could also force Hims & Hers to ensure they take
proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with.
[GN]

IHG MANAGEMENT: Carpio Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as AGUSTIN CARPIO, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff
vs. IHG MANAGEMENT (MARYLAND) LLC, a Maryland limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants., Case No.
25STCV38559, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on March 25,
2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03208 to the
proceeding.

In this complaint, the Plaintiff asserts ten causes of action for
(1) Violation of California Labor Code (Unpaid Overtime); (2)
Violation of California Labor Code (Unpaid Meal Period Premiums);
(3) Violation of California Labor Code (Unpaid Rest Period
Premiums); (4) Violation of California Labor Code (Unpaid Minimum
Wages); (5) Violation of California Labor Code (Final Wages Not
Timely Paid); (6) Violation of California Labor Code (Wages Not
Timely Paid During Employment); (7) Violation of California Labor
Code (Non-Compliant Wage Statements); (8) Violation of California
Labor Code (Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records); (9)
Violation of California Labor Code (Unreimbursed Business
Expenses); and (10) Violation of California Business & Professions
Code.

The Defendant is represented by:

     Bethany A. Pelliconi, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
     Telephone: (310) 277-7200
     Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
     E-mail: bpelliconi@seyfarth.com

          - and -

     Mark D. Kruthers, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     400 Capitol Mall
     Suite 2300
     Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
     Telephone: (916) 448-0159
     Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
     E-mail: mkruthers@seyfarth.com

          - and -

     Ping Wang, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94105-2930
     Telephone: (415) 397-2823
     Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
     E-mail: pwang@seyfarth.com

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Guyton Suit Over Private Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND EARL GUYTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-02363 (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2026)
arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of
current and former employees' sensitive information in the
possession and custody and/or control of Defendant.

While the Defendant has posted a rudimentary online notice on its
website regarding the breach, it has not yet begun formal
notification of the breach to Plaintiff and the Class. The
Defendant continues to obfuscate the nature of the breach and the
threat it posted--refusing to tell its employees how many people
were impacted, how the breach happened, when the breach actually
occurred, when it was discovered, or why Defendant continues to
delay notifying victims that cybercriminals had gained access to
their highly private information.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful
conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy,
breach of fiduciary, and for violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law and the California Consumer Privacy Act.

Headquartered in Sunnyvale, CA, Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc.
develops and manufactures robotic-assisted surgical systems. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Andrew G. Gunem, Esq.
        STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
        980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
        Chicago, IL 60611
        Telephone: (872) 263-1100
        Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
        E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com

IROBOT CORP: Schultz Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IROBOT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-03533 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act 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,
https://www.irobot.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: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts,
inaccessible contact information, changing of content without
advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of
alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some
interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse.

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.

iRobot Corporation is a company that sells online goods and
services in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Alison Chan, Esq.
       EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
       4903 Avenue N.
       Brooklyn NY 11234
       Telephone: (844) 731-3343
       Email: Achan@ealg.law

JAGUAR LAND: Page Sues Over MHEV's DC-DC Converter Malfunction
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MARTIN PAGE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03438 (D.N.J., March 31, 2026) is
a class action against the Defendant for breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of
implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose, violations of
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the
New Jersey Products Liability Act, and the South Carolina Unfair
Trade Practices Act, fraud and fraudulent concealment, and unjust
enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing,
marketing, and selling of mild hybrid electric vehicles (MHEV) with
defect. According to the complaint, the direct current-direct
current converter, which is an essential component of the MHEV
technology, can fail prematurely, which prevents energy stored in
the 48V battery from being converted for use by the 12V battery,
which leaves essential functionality of the vehicle unable to
operate. This failure can cause charging system malfunctions,
excessive battery drain, display of errors and warnings, loss of
electrical component functionality, issues starting the vehicle,
and engine stalling. Had the Plaintiff and Class Members known
about this serious defect at the time of purchase, they either
would not have purchased their Class Vehicles or else would have
paid substantially less for them. The Plaintiff and Class Members
did not receive the benefit of their bargain, suit says.

Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC is an automobile manufacturer,
with its principal place of business in Mahwah, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Mitchell Breit, Esq.
       MILBERG, PLLC
       405 E. 50th Street
       New York, NY 10022
       Telephone: (630) 796-0903
       Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
       Email: mbreit@milberg.com
  
                - and -

       Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
       William A. Ladnier, Esq.
       MILBERG, PLLC
       800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
       Knoxville, TN 37929
       Telephone: (865) 247-0080
       Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
       Email: aedwards@milberg.com
              wladnier@milberg.com
  
                - and -

       T. Christopher Tuck, Esq.
       Robert S. Wood, Esq.
       T.A.C. Hargrove, II, Esq.
       ROGERS, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
       1037 Chuck Dawley Boulevard, Building A
       Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
       Telephone: (843) 727-6500
       Email: ctuck@rpwb.com
              bwood@rpwb.com
              thargrove@rpwb.com

JOLIE SKIN: Clifft Sues Over False Showerhead's Misrepresentations
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTY CLIFFT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOLIE SKIN CO. INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:26-cv-02942 (C.D. Cal., March 18, 2026) accuses the Defendant of
breaching warranty, unjust enrichment, and of violating
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law,
and False Advertising Law.

The case arises from Defendant's false and misleading
representations that Jolie Filtered Showerhead reduces hair
shedding and increases hair growth. However, the product's
filtering properties do not actually increase hair growth and
reduce hair loss. Unfortunately for Plaintiff and other similarly
situated consumers, scientific literature demonstrates that, while
chlorine and hard water can damage hair causing breakage and
thinning that may mimic hair loss, removing these contaminants
through filtration does not lead to increased follicular hair
growth and reduced true shedding rates as warranted by Defendant's
claims, says the suit.

Jolie Skin Co. is a beauty wellness company headquartered in
Accord, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
         Luke Sironski-White, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 lsironski@bursor.com

                 - and -

         Greg Sinderbrand, Esq.
         SINDERBRAND LAW GROUP, P.C.
         2829 Townsgate Rd., Ste 100
         Westlake Village, CA 91361
         Telephone: (818) 370-3912
         E-mail: greg@sinderbrandlaw.com

M&B INTERNATIONAL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. M&B International Holdings, LLC d/b/a Mott &
Bow, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01931 (D. Minn., March 18, 2026)
alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Minnesota Human Rights Act.

The Plaintiff maintains that Defendant's policies regarding the
maintenance and operation of its website, www.mottandbow.com, fail
to ensure its website is fully accessible to, and independently
usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities.

Headquartered in Wilmington, DE, M&B International Holdings, LLC
owns and operates the website which offers apparel for sale. [BN]

The Plaintiff is 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@throndsetlaw.com
                pat@throndsetlaw.com
                jason@throndsetlaw.com

MEIJER DISTRIBUTION: Vera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
PERCY VERA II, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., d/b/a PURPLE COW CREAMERY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00090-MJN-CHG (S.D. Ohio, March 18,
2026) seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its facility in Tipp City,
Ohio as an hourly, non-exempt employee as defined in the FLSA in
several positions, including receiver and forklift driver, from
approximately 2015 to January 2024. During the relevant period,
Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly
production/manufacturing employees frequently worked more than 40
hours per workweek.

However, the Defendant did not pay all hours worked. Among other
things, the Defendant failed to track, maintain, or transmit the
hours accurately worked each day by Plaintiff and other similarly
situated production/manufacturing employees, says the suit.

Meijer Distribution, Inc. does business as Purple Cow Creamery, and
manufactures and distributes ice cream, yogurt, and other dairy
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
          Kevin A. Nickel, Esq.
          1550 Old Henderson Rd, Suite #126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  sdraher@mcoffmanlega.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  knickel@mcoffmanlegal.com

META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Suit in Denmark Over Harmful Platforms
------------------------------------------------------------------
iclg.com reports that lawsuit targets harmful addictive designs
allegedly integrated into Meta's platforms amid escalating global
scrutiny. A Danish front has been opened in the global battle to
hold Meta to account for designing addictive platforms that put
children and adolescents at risk of harm, as a new class action
lawsuit accuses the global tech giant of intentionally capitalising
on minors' psychological vulnerabilities to boost user engagement
and advertising revenue on its platforms.

Filed with the Copenhagen City Court on 1 April, the class action
lawsuit comes just a week after a Los Angeles County Superior Court
jury found in K.G.M. v Meta et al that Meta and Google had
intentionally deployed addictive features on its platforms that
contributed to the deterioration of a young user's health, awarding
$3 million in damages.

Denmark enters the fray

The new class action has been brought by non-profit foundation
Stichting Onderzoek Marktinformatie (SOMI) on behalf of a group of
minors alleged to have suffered mental health harms after using
Facebook and Instagram.

Infinite scrolling features, algorithmic recommendation systems and
fear-of-missing-out (FOMO) triggers are among the features alleged
to be causing harm. These designs, alongside social comparison
mechanisms and beauty filters, are said to be increasingly linked
to anxiety, depression, weakened academic performance, eating
disorders, sleep disruption and body dissatisfaction among children
and adolescents.

According to the lawsuit, Meta had been alerted to the fact that
certain design tweaks could significantly reduce harm but, fearing
losses to user engagement and advertising revenue, took no
rectifying action. The complaint adds that the tech giant failed to
implement effective age verification mechanisms, leaving minors to
access the platforms without adequate oversight.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Digital Services Act (DSA),
the AI Act and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The
proposed class is requesting the court to order Meta to modify or
scrap the harmful design features, implement effective age
verification measures, cease the marketing and monetisation of
services based on data collected from children, and provide access
to the data collected from the class in relation to their use on
Facebook and Instagram. The lawsuit has requested compensation of
25,000 Danish kroner (GBP2,900) for each affected class member.

SOMI has confirmed that similar lawsuits against Meta have also
been filed in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. The non-profit
is already embroiled in several collective proceedings brought
against Meta and X, including a class action centred on the alleged
unlawful collection of personal data for AI training.

In the US

All eyes are on the landmark verdict that emerged from a
Californian courtroom last week. Part of multidistrict litigation
(MDL) consolidated in the US District Court for the Northern
District of California, K.G.M. v Meta et al stands as the first of
more than 20 bellwether cases slated to go to trial in the coming
years, with other similar consolidated actions underway in other
states.

Meta has already acknowledged the encroaching risks emerging from
this raft of litigation, stating in an October 2025 filing with the
US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that the maximum
aggregate damages sought across all of its legal proceedings could
amount to "hundreds of billions of dollars". But the consequences
extend far beyond court-ordered damages. Should other bellwether
trials follow the same trajectory as K.G.M. v Meta, Meta and its
rivals risk being hit with a damning legal precedent capable of
hitting right at the heart of their revenue and engagement tactics.


Beyond the US, similar lawsuits continue to pile up across the
globe, while regulators show no sign of abating their crackdown on
technology companies appearing to prioritise profits and engagement
over children's safety.

In the EU

In 2024, the European Commission opened formal proceedings to
assess whether Meta had breached the DSA over concerns the design
of Facebook and Instagram stimulate behavioural addictions in
children and create a so-called 'rabbit-hole' effect. The ongoing
probe is also examining whether Meta had implemented effective
age-assurance and verification methods on its platforms.

In further worrying news for social media companies, the Commission
has this year preliminary found TikTok in breach of the DSA for its
addictive design features, including autoplay, infinite scroll and
push notifications. If the final conclusions do not fall in
TikTok's favour, the platform could be slapped with fines of up to
6% of its global annual turnover, estimated at $35 billion in 2026.
The Commission has also recently launched an investigation into
Shein that is focusing on, among other concerns, risks linked to
the addictive design of its service. [GN]

META PLATFORMS: Shirazi Sues for Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------
BRIAN Y. SHIRAZI and NIDA SAMSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC.,
WHATSAPP LLC, ACCENTURE PLC, and ACCENTURE LLP, Defendants, Case
No. 26-cv-2615 (N.D. Cal., March 26, 2026) is a class action filed
by the plaintiffs for invasion privacy.

Defendant WhatsApp LLC is a popular messaging service. It is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Meta (then Facebook) since 2014.
Since its inception in 2009, WhatsApp has consistently branded and
marketed itself as a private and secure messaging service. Given
WhatsApp's supposed commitment to keeping messages sent by users
private, Plaintiffs reasonably believed that the messages they sent
on WhatsApp were fully secure and not viewed by or shared with any
third parties who were not recipients of messages sent by
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further reasonably believed that neither
WhatsApp, Meta, their respective employees, nor contractors
employed by Accenture or other third parties could see the content
of messages Plaintiffs sent on WhatsApp.

Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and other WhatsApp users, WhatsApp, Meta,
their respective employees, Accenture contractors, and/or third
parties had access to users' supposedly private and encrypted
messages, the complaint asserts. Indeed, according to recent
reporting, whistleblowers have informed federal investigators that
Meta employees and third-party contractors had "broad access to the
substance of WhatsApp messages that were supposed to be encrypted
and inaccessible" and can look "back aways into WhatsApp
(encrypted) messages." These revelations stand in stark contrast to
WhatsApp's repeated commitments to keep messages private between
senders and recipients.

The complaint alleges that WhatsApp's secret interception, reading,
storing, accessing, and/or viewing of the messages it ensured
Plaintiffs and similarly situated Class members were private,
including without adequate disclosure to Plaintiffs and Class
members, constitutes a serious invasion of Plaintiffs' and Class
members' privacy and violates the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act; the California Invasion of Privacy Act; the Pennsylvania
Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act; the California
Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act; the Stored
Communications Act; the California Constitution; common law
intrusion upon seclusion; breach of express and implied contract;
Statutory Larceny Through False Pretenses; the California Unfair
Competition Law; and the California False Advertising Law.

The Plaintiffs are WhatsApp account users.

Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Meta") is a multinational
technology conglomerate, organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware, and having its principal place of business
in Menlo Park, California.

Defendant Accenture PLC ("Accenture") is a multinational technology
consulting company incorporated in Ireland, and having its
principal place of business in Dublin, Ireland.

Defendant Accenture LLP ("Accenture") has three partners: Accenture
Inc., Accenture Sub II Inc., and Accenture LLC. Accenture Inc. and
Accenture Sub II Inc. are incorporated under the laws of Delaware
and have their principal places of business in Delaware.[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 -

     Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
     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: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
             myeates@ktmc.com
             tgraden@ktmc.com
             jjacobson@ktmc.com
             ddicce@ktmc.com

MONBENTO INC: Nonato Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE NONATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONBENTO INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-03539 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act 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,
https://us.monbento.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: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing
of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics,
inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of adequate labeling of form
fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse.

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.

Monbento Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Alison Chan, Esq.
       EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
       4903 Avenue N.
       Brooklyn NY 11234
       Telephone: (844) 731-3343
       Email: Achan@ealg.law

NAVIA BENEFIT: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Austin Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW AUSTIN and JEFFREY HALE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01021 (W.D. Wash., March 25,
2026) arises out of Defendant Navia's failures to properly secure,
safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy
Plaintiffs' and Class members' sensitive personal identifiable
information that it had acquired and stored for its business
purposes.

The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of receiving
Defendant's services and products, each individual must provide
Defendant with sensitive, personal, and private information. On
March 18, 2026, Navia announced on its web site that "[o]n January
23, 2026, Navia discovered suspicious activity related to our
environment. Navia promptly responded and launched an investigation
to confirm the nature and scope of the incident. The investigation
determined that an unauthorized actor accessed and potentially
acquired certain information between December 22, 2025, and January
15, 2026," including names, dates of birth, Social Security number,
phone number, email address, and health plan information. Despite
apparently learning of the Data Breach on or about January 23,
2026, and determining that Private Information was involved in the
breach, Defendant failed to provide notice, or any information
concerning the Breach to the individuals affected, including
Plaintiffs and Class members until March 18, 2026.

As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class members have
been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. Plaintiffs and Class members must now and for years
into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard
against identity theft. Plaintiffs and Class members may also incur
out of pocket costs for, e.g., purchasing credit monitoring, credit
freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and
detect identity theft, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons to address
Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class members' Private
Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to
provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class
members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized
access of an unknown third party and failing to include in that
belated and inadequate notice precisely what specific types of
information were accessed and taken by cybercriminals. The
Plaintiffs seek remedies including, but not limited to,
compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and
injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data
security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and
adequate credit monitoring funded by Defendant, and declaratory
relief.

Plaintiff Andrew Austin is and at all times mentioned herein was an
individual citizen of the State of Minnesota, and is a Data Breach
victim.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Hale is and at all times mentioned herein was an
individual citizen of the State of Idaho, and received a Notice of
Security Incident.

Defendant Navia Benefit Solutions, Inc. offers comprehensive
benefits administration, retirement, CDH, finance, lifestyle, and
compliance solutions to employers and deliver industry-leading
customer service, communications, and technology.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq.
     McNAUL EBEL PLLC
     600 University Street, Suite 2700
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: (206) 467-1816
     Facsimile: (206) 624-5128
     E-mail: kboyd@mcnaul.com

          - and -

     Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
     Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
     EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
     411 S. State Street, Suite N300
     Newtown, PA 18940
     Telephone: (215) 867-2399
     E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
             lverderame@edelson-law.com

NEW ERA ENERGY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired New Era Energy & Digital, Inc. ("New Era Energy"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NUAI) f/k/a New Era Helium Inc.
securities between November 6, 2024 and December 29, 2025,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). New Era Energy investors have until
June 1, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR NEW ERA ENERGY & DIGITAL, INC.
(NUAI) INVESTMENTS, Visit
https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/new-era-energy-digital-inc/ TO
SUBMIT A CLAIM TO POTENTIALLY RECOVER YOUR LOSSES IN THE ONGOING
SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT.

What Happened?

On December 12, 2025, Fuzzy Panda Research published a report (the
"FP Report") alleging, among other things, that "of NUAI's 406 gas
wells, 346 were acquired from companies that went bankrupt
operating the very same wells, including 87 wells from the company
E. Will Gray II was CEO of and bankrupted himself, Remnant Oil."
The FP Report states this was in line with prior companies run by
New Era Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Everett Willard Gray II
("Gray," also known as "E. Will") who "has a long history (~20
years) of incinerating value at oil & gas pink sheet companies"
some seemingly on purpose to effectuate his own financial benefit.
For example, the report details how "Gray was Co-Founder & CEO of
Remnant Oil, a private co, which went bankrupt in 2019 after
hundreds of 'regulatory violations'" but that Remnant's wells were
"acquired in bankruptcy by a related party, Acacia Resources, and
were then sold to Solis Partners, a subsidiary of New Era Energy."
The FP Report states it "uncovered that Gray's playbook includes
financial tricks to enrich insiders, like converting related party
loans to equity or paying fees to friends and family."

The FP Report further calls the Company's pivot to fueling AI
companies a "fantasy." The FP Report alleges, among other things,
that despite the Company "telling investors it's made significant
progress" with its regulatory permitting, including the submission
of air quality permits, "no applications have even been submitted."
The FP states that according to "Texas, New Mexico and Federal
government databases for the construction and environmental permits
that NUAI will need to start building its data centers and power
plants" the Company had not submitted any of its required permits,
"not even an application."

On this news, New Era's stock price fell $0.25 per share, or 6.9%,
to close at $3.35 on December 12, 2025, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

On December 29, 2025, Hunterbrook Media reported that the New
Mexico Attorney General filed a lawsuit against New Era Energy, its
subsidiary Solis Partners, LLC, and Gray, among others, (the "HBM
Report"). The HBM Report publicized that New Mexico had recently
filed a complaint alleging New Era Energy, Gray, and a network of
affiliated companies, had orchestrated a "fraudulent oil-and-gas
scheme" to "siphon revenue from wells that produce fossil fuels
while abandoning environmental cleanup obligations." The HBM Report
details how the complaint "alleges a broader pattern of fraudulent
transfers, self-dealing, and false statements to regulators,
including the use of shell entities and strategic bankruptcies to
evade responsibility."

According to the HBM Report, the scheme reportedly involved the
Company, Gray, and a network of affiliated companies transferring
wells among related entities, including New Era Energy and its
subsidiary, Solis Partners "selling" wells to themselves, and then
placing liability-bearing companies into bankruptcy to avoid
plugging and remediation costs. Reportedly, New Era Energy was core
to the scheme, in part by receiving and operating the most valuable
gas wells, 87 in total, which were transferred from Acacia to Solis
Partners, while leaving Acacia with the bulk of plugging and
remediation liabilities. That transfer reportedly occurred in July
2021. According to the complaint, the defendants, including New Era
Energy, thus subsequently "received significant revenue (possibly
into the millions of dollars) that they knew would otherwise be
required to address" plugging and remediation costs.

On this news, New Era's stock price fell $1.87, or 41%, to close at
$2.69 per share on December 29, 2025, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

What Is The Lawsuit About?

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) the Company overstated its progress in its
permitting and regulatory filings for its flagship Texas Critical
Data Centers project; (2) the Company was involved in a fraudulent
scheme "to pocket revenues from hundreds of oil and gas wells in
New Mexico" by transferring wells among related entities and then
placing liability-bearing companies into bankruptcy to avoid
plugging and remediation costs; (3) that, as a result, the
Company's financial results were false and/or misleading; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Contact Us To Participate or Learn More:

If you purchased New Era Energy securities, wish to learn more
about this action, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please click HERE or contact us at:

     Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz
     2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800
     Telephone: (310) 914-5007
     Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com
     Website: www.frankcruzlaw.com

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.[GN]

NORTH EAST: Smith Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Drivers & Firefighters
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA SMITH and KURT JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORTH EAST CABARRUS
VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT & COMMUNITY CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:26-cv-00296 (M.D.N.C., March 31, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Smith and Johnson began their employment with the
Defendant as a driver from January 2021 until October 7, 2025, and
as a firefighter from January 2022 until April 25, 2025,
respectively.

North East Cabarrus Volunteer Fire Department & Community Center,
Inc. is a non-profit volunteer fire department that provides
firefighting services to parts of Cabarrus County, North Carolina.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
       Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
       Corey M. Stanton, Esq.
       GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC
       6135 Park South Drive, Suite 510
       Charlotte, NC 28210
       Telephone: (704) 612-0038
       Email: phil@gibbonslg.com
              corey@gibbonslg.com

NOURISH INC: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, JANE DOE 1, and JANE DOE 2, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NOURISH, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02231 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2026) seeks
to address Defendant's outrageous, illegal, and widespread
violation of that trust by intercepting and disclosing the
confidential personally identifiable information and protected
health information of its customers to third parties, including but
not limited to Meta Platforms, Inc. and Alphabet Inc.

The Plaintiffs and other Class Members who used Defendant's website
thought they were communicating only with their trusted healthcare
provider. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and Class Members, however,
Nourish had embedded its patient-facing Website with third-party
tracking technologies including but not limited to the Google
Analytics, Google DoubleClick, and the Meta Pixel surreptitiously
forcing Plaintiffs and Class Members to transmit to Google and Meta
clicks, keystrokes, and intimate details about their medical
treatment.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek the harms caused by Defendant's
conduct and bring causes of action for (1) violations of the
Electronics Communication Privacy Act, unauthorized interception,
use, and disclosure; (2) negligence and negligence per se; (3)
breach of fiduciary duty; (4) breach of confidence; (5) breach of
implied contract; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) invasion of privacy,
(8) violations of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Control Act, (9) New York General Business Law, (10)
Florida Security Communications Act.

Headquartered in New York, NY, Nourish Inc. offers nutrition
counseling. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Russell Busch, Esq.
         BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU DEMAY PLLC
         11 Park Place, 3rd Floor
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (919) 926-7948
         E-mail: rbusch@brysonpllc.com

                 - and -

         James R. DeMay, Esq.
         BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU DEMAY PLLC
         900 West Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC 27603
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         E-mail: jdemay@brysonpllc.com

OLLY PUBLIC: Rodriguez Sues Over Gummy Rings' Deceptive Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLLY PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02034-RBM-SBC (S.D. Cal., March 31,
2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unfair and
unlawful business acts and practices and deceptive advertising in
violation of California Business and Professions Code, violation of
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of express warranty, and
quasi-contract.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Olly Metabolism
Gummy Rings. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents
the product to provide the benefits of apple cider vinegar (ACV).
In reality, the product does not provide the benefits of ACV and
does not support lean body mass or a happy, healthy metabolism. Had
the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth,
they would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less
for it, says the suit.

Olly Public Benefit Corporation is a manufacturer of vitamins and
health supplements, with its principal place of business in
Hoboken, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Naomi B. Spector, Esq.
         KAMBERLAW, LLP
         3451 Via Montebello, Ste. 192-212
         Carlsbad, CA 92009
         Telephone: (310) 400-1053
         Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
         Email: nspector@kamberlaw.com

PAULA'S CHOICE: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Paula's Choice, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:26-cv-01924-PJS-DTS (D. Minn., March 18, 2026) accuses the
Defendant of violating the general non-discriminatory mandate and
the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its
implementing regulations.

The Defendant failed to provide its website content and services in
a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring
Defendant to make changes to its existing website and related
policies, practices, and procedures in order to ensure Defendant's
website become and remain ADA compliant.

The Plaintiff further asserts claims for violations of the
Minnesota Human Rights Act.

Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Paula's Choice, LLC owns and operates
the website, www.paulaschoice.com, which offers skincare supplies
and accessories. [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
         E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 chad@throndsetlaw.com
                 jason@throndsetlaw.com

PENUMBRA INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Boston Scientific
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates
PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

-- Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE: PEN) related to its sale to Boston
Scientific Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed
transaction, Penumbra shareholders are expected to receive 3.8721
shares of Boston Scientific common stock or $374.00 in cash for
each share of Penumbra common stock.

ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for May 6, 2026.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/penumbra-inc/. It is free and there
is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Marine Products Corporation (NYSE: MPX) related to its sale to
MasterCraft Boat Holdings, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed
transaction, Marine shareholders are expected to receive $2.43 per
share in cash and 0.232 shares of MasterCraft common stock for each
share of Marine.

ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for May 12, 2026.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/marine-products-corporation/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- MasterCraft Boat Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: MCFT) related to its
merger with Marine Products Corporation. Upon completion of the
proposed transaction, MasterCraft shareholders will own 66.5% of
the combined company.

ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for May 12, 2026.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/mastercraft-boat-holdings-inc/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Janus Henderson Group plc (NYSE: JHG) related to its sale to
Trian Fund Management and General Catalyst. Under the terms of the
proposed transaction, Janus Henderson shareholders are expected to
receive $52.00 per share in cash.

ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 16, 2026.

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/janus-henderson-group-plc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
     2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
     3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.

No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

     Juan Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 971-1341
     jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN]

PERPLEXITY AI: Discloses Users' Private Info to 3rd Party, Doe Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERPLEXITY AI, INC., META PLATFORMS, INC.,
and GOOGLE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02803 (N.D. Cal.,
March 31, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the
California Constitution, California Civil Code, California Business
& Professions Code, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the
Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Federal
Wiretap Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law,
quasi-contract/restitution/unjust enrichment, and negligence.

The case arises from Perplexity's practice of aiding of Meta,
Google, and other third parties to learn the contents of its users'
communications without authorization and consent. According to the
complaint, Perplexity disclosed its users' conversational dialogues
with its AI Machine via tracking technologies that it
surreptitiously deployed inside the software code for its AI
Machine. The information sent to third parties as a result of these
tracking technologies included private information that the
Plaintiff and Class Members shared with Perplexity such as health,
financial, and legal information. The Plaintiff and Class Members
have been damaged as a direct and proximate result of Perplexity's
invasion of their privacy and are entitled to seek just
compensation, including monetary damages, suit says.

Perplexity AI, Inc. is an artificial intelligence company, with its
principal place of business in San Francisco, California.

Meta Platforms, Inc. is a social media company, with its principal
place of business in Menlo Park, California.

Google, LLC is a technology company, with its principal place of
business in Mountain View, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Foster C. Johnson, Esq.
         Joeseph Ahmad, Esq.
         Mark Holden, Esq.
         AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS & MENSING, PLLC
         1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500
         Houston TX 77010
         Telephone: (713) 655-1101
         Facsimile: (713) 655-0062
         Email: fjohnson@azalaw.com
                joeahmad@azalaw.com
                mholden@azalaw.com

PINTEREST INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 29
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com), a nationally
recognized securities litigation law firm, informs investors that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
Pinterest, Inc. (Pinterest) (NYSE: PINS) on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired Pinterest securities between February 7,
2025, and February 12, 2026, inclusive.

The lawsuit is filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California and is captioned Uziel v.
Pinterest, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-02745 (N.D. Cal.). Investors have
until May 29, 2026, to file for lead plaintiff status.

CONTACT KTMC TO DISCUSS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS:

If you purchased or acquired Pinterest securities and have lost
money on your investment, you are encouraged to contact KTMC
attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. or visit
https://www.ktmc.com/pins-pinterest-inc-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=Businesswire&utm_medium=pressrelease&utm_campaign=pins&mktm=PR

There is no cost or obligation to speak with an attorney.

PINTEREST, INC. CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT - COMPLAINT ALLEGATION
SUMMARY:

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material facts about the company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Pinterest was experiencing
and/or was likely to experience reduced revenues from its
advertising partners; (2) 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
Pinterest's advertising partners; (3) 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 (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Why did Pinterest's Stock Drop?

After multiple drops to its stock price on November 4, 2025 and
January 27, 2026, in response to the company's disclosures, the
final drop came on February 12, 2026. On that date, Pinterest
released its fourth quarter 2025 financial results and revealed
quarterly revenue below consensus estimates, and first quarter 2026
revenue guidance below consensus estimates. Pinterest attributed
the poor results to "an exogenous shock . . . related to tariffs,"
and stated that the company "expect[s] 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 16.8%,
to close at $15.42 per share on February 13, 2026.

WHAT PINS INVESTORS CAN DO NOW:

File to be lead plaintiff by May 29, 2026.

Contact KTMC for a free case evaluation. All representation is on a
contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you.

Retain counsel of choice or take no action.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS FOR PINTEREST, INC. INVESTORS:

Pinterest investors may, no later than May 29, 2026, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the
investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial
interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed
class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent
the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved
by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in
any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Pinterest investors
to contact the firm for more information.

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP (KTMC):

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (KTMC) is a leading U.S.
plaintiff-side law firm focused on securities-fraud class actions
and global investor protection. The firm represents individual
investors as well as institutions, such as major pension funds,
asset managers, and international investors. KTMC has led some of
the largest recoveries in securities litigation and has been
recognized by peers and the legal media with numerous accolades,
including The National Law Journal's Plaintiff's Hot List and
Trailblazers in Plaintiffs' Law, BTI Consulting Group's Honor Roll
of Most Feared Law Firms, The Legal Intelligencer's Class Action
Firm of the Year, Lawdragon's Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers,
and Law360's Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar. The firm operates
globally with offices in Pennsylvania and California. KTMC has
recovered over $25 billion for our clients and the classes they
represent. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, please visit www.ktmc.com. The complaint in this matter
was not filed by KTMC.

May be considered attorney advertising in certain jurisdictions.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Contacts

     Jonathan Naji, Esq.
     (484) 270-1453
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     info@ktmc.com [GN]

POSITIVE BEVERAGE: Garza Sues Over Misleading Product Labels
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE GARZA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POSITIVE BEVERAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:26-cv-00722 (C.D. Cal., March 25, 2026) is a California consumer
class action for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"), Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and for breach of express
warranty.

The complaint relates the products' packaging prominently displays
on the front of the label the claim that these Products contain "No
Sucralose, Aspartame, Artificial Preservatives, or Colors" (the "No
Artificial…Preservatives" claim). This statement is false. Each
of the Products are made with manufactured citric acid -- an
artificial preservative ingredient used in food and beverage
products. The Defendant's packaging, labeling, and advertising
scheme is intended to give consumers the impression that they are
buying a premium product that contains "No
Artificial…Preservatives."

The labels for each of the Products prominently state that the
Products contain "No Artificial…Preservatives," thereby
misleading reasonable consumers into believing that the Products
are free from artificial preservative ingredients. However, each of
the Products contain an artificial preservative called manufactured
citric acid, says the suit.

The Plaintiff, who purchased the Products in California, was
deceived by Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings this action on
her own behalf and on behalf of California consumers to remedy
Defendant's unlawful acts.

Plaintiff Michelle Garza is a resident of California. Plaintiff
purchased the Products during the class period in California.

Defendant Positive Beverage LLC manufactures, distributes,
advertises, markets, and sells Positive Hydration beverage
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
     Craig W. Straub, Esq.
     Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
     CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
     9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Telephone: (866) 276-7637
     Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
     E-mail: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com
             craig@crosnerlegal.com
             zach@crosnerlegal.com

QUALITY INSIGHTS: Ortiz Seeks Community Health Workers' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE ORTIZ and YOCELYNE LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. QUALITY INSIGHTS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00236 (S.D. W. Va., March 31, 2026) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the West Virginia Wage Payment and
Collection Act including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
pay for all hours worked, and failure to pay minimum wages.

Plaintiffs Ortiz and Lopez were employed by the Defendant as
community health workers from approximately March 2023 through May
2025 and from approximately April 2022 through February 2025,
respectively.

Quality Insights, Inc. is a healthcare quality improvement
organization, with its principal place of business in Charleston,
West Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Sean W. Cook, Esq.
         309 Dolaron Lane
         South Charleston, WV 25309
         Telephone: (681) 781-4369
         Email: sean@seanwcooklaw.com

ROKA SPORTS: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Kelly Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW KELLY, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROKA SPORTS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:26-cv-02383 (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2026) alleges violations of
the Federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy
Act.

Plaintiff Kelly browsed for and purchased a pair of prescription
eyeglasses on Defendant's website. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, these
communications were intercepted in transit by Google--s enabled by
Defendant--including communications that contained Plaintiff's
sensitive, personally identifiable information relating to eyewear
purchases. Neither Defendant nor Google procured Plaintiff's prior
consent to this interception, says the suit.

Headquartered in Austin, TX, Roka Sports, Inc operates as an
eyewear company that designs, manufactures, and sells prescription
and non-prescription eyeglasses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         Email: idiaz@bursor.com

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Unlawful Diversion of Public Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fonseca of NJ.com reports that a Rutgers University graduate
has filed a class action lawsuit against his alma mater alleging
that the school's athletic department "has squandered tens of
millions in taxpayer funding" through "wasteful spending, lack of
oversight, and other gross negligence" and has "harmed New Jersey
taxpayers" while racking up a half-billion dollar deficit over the
past decade.

The suit, filed Tuesday, March 31, in Middlesex County Superior
Court by attorney Hector Rodriguez, is seeking to "halt the ongoing
waste and unlawful diversion of public funds" to the athletics
department, which reported a record $78 million deficit for the
2024-25 academic year.

Rodriguez, a class of 1975 Rutgers alum who was once a judge in
Franklin Township, argues in the filing that the $516 million
deficit Rutgers has accrued since joining the Big Ten in 2014
"constitutes a systemic misuse of public resources undertaken
without meaningful oversight, without legislative authorization,
and without a credible plan for fiscal sustainability."

Seeking a trial by jury, Rodriguez requests that the court declare
that the school's "continued subsidization of athletics deficits
with public funds violates New Jersey law" and orders "an
independent financial audit of Rutgers athletics." He also seeks to
prevent Rutgers "from approving or funding athletic deficits using
taxpayer-supported funds without legislative authorization" and
demands that Rutgers "make restitution to the State of New Jersey
for all amounts deemed to have been improperly used."

President William Tate, the Board of Governors and Board of
Trustees were all named as defendants.

In a statement to NJ.com, Rutgers spokeswoman Dory Devlin said the
university "does not comment on pending litigation" and "will
respond to the complaint through the legal process."

"Rutgers' academic mission and national profile have significantly
advanced since the university joined the Big Ten," Devlin said in
the statement. "At the same time, despite major revenue growth from
Big Ten distributions, costs driven by the talent and
infrastructure required, including coaches' salaries, high salary
fringe rates, facilities, and student-athlete resources, have
outpaced revenue.

"Rutgers is not alone: Rutgers athletics operating spending ranks
11 out of the 18 teams in the Big Ten. During this unprecedented
time of change in collegiate athletics, the university is taking
several steps to work toward a sustainable athletics budget, which
currently makes up 3% of Rutgers' $6 billion budget."

Rodriguez was not immediately available for comment Tuesday, March
31. Bruce Nagel, an attorney representing him in this case, said
the lawsuit is about "stopping this wasteful spending of money that
is resulting in huge losses to the taxpayers."

"Rutgers has been running its athletic department at a shocking
deficit," Nagel told NJ.com. "It has generated over $500 million in
losses. It is funded by taxpayer money, and it has got to stop."

Since joining the Big Ten, Rutgers has reported $1,356,068,522 in
operating expenses and $1,165,521,194 in operating revenue, a
deficit of $190,547,328. But the revenue figure includes subsidies,
which account for 28% of that total according to an NJ.com
analysis.

When removing student fees ($138.1M), university support ($146.2M)
and state funding ($42.1M) from the revenue total, Rutgers' deficit
since joining the Big Ten surpasses $516 million, marking the
biggest in the league by a significant margin.

Most Big Ten schools rely on some form of subsidy, NJ.com analysis
shows, but none come close to Rutgers. In the past four years, the
New Jersey school took in the most combined state support,
direct-university support and student-fee revenue ($109.6M) by a
wide margin.

Rodriguez is seeking restitution for all of the state funds
directed toward athletics, noting that only three of the Big Ten's
13 non-west-coast public schools have received a subsidy from their
respective state budgets over the last four years: Illinois ($29.6
million), Rutgers ($27.2M) and Wisconsin ($6.2M).

In a guest column on NJ.com, Tate argued that the "deficit figures
reflect NCAA accounting rules, not how most athletic departments
describe their actual operating results." He notes that the $78
million deficit in the latest fiscal year includes "several forms
of support, including $7 million in university funding, $8 million
in state support, and $15.8 million in student fees," which he
believes should be "counted as revenue."

Tate also noted that athletics "represents about 3% of the
university's $6 billion budget -- less than half of average
athletic expenses at the top Division I universities." [GN]

SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Collects Website Users' Data, Schallert Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE SCHALLERT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03454
(C.D. Cal., March 31, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant
for violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act and intrusion
upon seclusion.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged installation and use
of a data broker software on its website,
https://na.sensientfoodcolors.com/, to secretly collect data about
a website visitor's devices, locations and views of webpages.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has partnered with
registered California data brokers in order to deanonymize and
develop clandestine user profiles on otherwise anonymous website
visitors. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful surveillance, the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals have been injured.

Sensient Technologies Corporation is a global manufacturer and
marketer of specialized colors, flavors, and extracts for food and
beverage products based in Wisconsin. [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
       Email: eshapiro@taulersmith.com
              cventry@taulersmith.com

SOOFER CO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Mislabeled Oil Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluffton Today reports that a proposed class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against Soofer Co., Inc., doing business as
Sadaf Foods, alleging that certain cooking oil products were
mislabeled and marketed in a manner that misled consumers.

The lawsuit, Mikha, et al. v. Soofer Co., Inc., d/b/a Sadaf Foods,
Case No. 3:26-cv-01951-AGS-BJW, alleges that the company marketed a
product labeled "Mediterranean Olive Oil Blend" that, according to
independent laboratory testing referenced in the complaint, did not
contain detectable olive oil despite labeling suggesting the
presence of olive oil. The complaint alleges that testing showed
the product consisted entirely of soybean oil.

According to the complaint, plaintiffs allege that the product's
labeling prominently referenced olive oil and included imagery of
olives, which they contend led consumers to believe the product
contained olive oil. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers
paid a premium for the product based on these representations and
would not have purchased the product had they known its alleged
composition.

The complaint asserts claims under California consumer protection
statutes, including California Business and Professions Code
sections governing unfair competition and false advertising, as
well as California Health and Safety Code provisions governing
labeling of blended oils. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, and
injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling and other measures
if the claims are proven.

The lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who
purchased the product within the applicable limitations period, as
well as a California subclass of purchasers. The case is currently
at an early stage, and no court has made any findings regarding the
merits of the allegations.

About the Case

This press release summarizes allegations contained in a complaint
filed in federal court. The allegations are claims made by
plaintiffs and have not been proven in court. Soofer Co., Inc.,
d/b/a Sadaf Foods denies liability unless and until proven
otherwise in accordance with applicable law. A copy of the filed
complaint can be found here:
https://workdrive.zohoexternal.com/external/81964d04fc4251f12b9de344db482671f46f0b8985ea15e7afc0ccf270c69387

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
     SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
     2221 Camino del Rio S, Suite 308
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (866) 219-3343
     Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com

          - and -

     THE LAW OFFICE OF QUINTIN G. SHAMMAM
     2111 Camino del Rio S, Suite 207
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 444-0001
     Email: quintin@shammamlaw.com

          - and -

     THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. ATTIQ
     2111 Camino del Rio S, Suite 207
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 520-5201
     Email: joseph@attiqlaw.com

          - and -

     Joshua Swigart, Esq.
     SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
     (866) 219-3343 [GN]


STRYKER CORP: Tanner Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRISTAN TANNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STRYKER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-01064-HYJ-PJG (W.D. Mich., March 31, 2026) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgement.

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 March 11, 2026. 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.

Stryker Corporation is a provider of medical technologies based in
Portage, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC
      950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Telephone: (248) 841-2200
      Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
             gam@millerlawpc.com
  
              - and -

      Dan Gustafson, Esq.
      David Goodwin, Esq.
      Frances Mahoney-Mosedale, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Email: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
             dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
             fmahoneymosedale@gustafsongluek.com
  
              - and -

      James F. Woods, Esq.
      Annie E. Causey, Esq.
      WOODS LONERGAN PLLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1410
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 684-2500
      Email: jwoods@woodslaw.com
             acausey@woodslaw.com

SYNEOS HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Investor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 31, 2026, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied in part defendants' motion to
dismiss in Kempen International Funds, et al. v. Syneos Health,
Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-08848 (S.D.N.Y.), clearing the way for
discovery in the investor class action led by DiCello Levitt.

The Kempen case charges Syneos Health, Inc. and certain of its
former senior executives with violations of the federal securities
laws and alleges that defendants manipulated key performance
metrics, including backlog and book-to-bill ratios, and
misrepresented the company's post-pandemic recovery in quarterly
and annual SEC filings throughout a class period spanning September
9, 2020 to November 3, 2022. As the truth emerged through a series
of disclosures, Syneos's stock price suffered sharp declines,
including a 46% drop in a single day in November 2022.

In sustaining the claims, the Court held that plaintiffs alleged
with particularity that Syneos's SEC filings contained false or
misleading backlog figures, finding that plaintiffs plausibly
alleged that defendants added hundreds of millions of dollars to
reported backlog in violation of Syneos's own stated methodology.
On scienter, the Court found a strong inference of fraudulent
intent based on unusual and suspicious insider stock sales,
internal objections from high-level managers and business unit CFOs
who warned the practices could amount to fraud, and the suspicious
timing of all four individual defendants' departures from the
company. With the motion to dismiss largely denied, the case will
now move into discovery.

"This ruling validates what we have alleged from the start: that
Syneos's leadership systematically inflated the company's most
important performance metrics while enriching themselves through
stock sales at prices they knew were artificially high," said San
Diego Managing Partner Brian O'Mara. "We look forward to moving
this case into discovery and proving these claims on behalf of our
clients and the class."

The DiCello Levitt attorneys leading the litigation include Henry
Rosen, Brian O'Mara, Steve Jodlowski, Jarett Sena, Hani Farah, and
Roxana Pierce. The case is Kempen International Funds, et al. v.
Syneos Health, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-08848 (S.D.N.Y.).

About DiCello Levitt

At DiCello Levitt, we're dedicated to achieving justice for our
clients through securities, class action, environmental, mass tort,
financial services, antitrust, business-to-business, public client,
whistleblower, and personal injury litigation. Our attorneys are
highly respected for their ability to litigate and win cases --
whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise -- for people who have
suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained significant
economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect their
citizens' rights and interests. Every day, we put our reputations
-- and our capital -- on the line for our clients.

DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of
the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by the National Law
Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark
ratings. For more information about the firm, including recent
trial victories and case resolutions, please visit
www.dicellolevitt.com. [GN]

TEVA CANADA: Federal Court Dismisses CAD$5-Bil. Price-Fixing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JD Supra reports that the Federal Court of Canada has found that a
C$5 billion class action alleging an industry-wide conspiracy to
fix generic drug prices in Canada has no basis in fact.

On February 20, 2026, the Federal Court dismissed the plaintiff's
certification motion in Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited et
al., 2026 FC 239, and did so without leave to amend. The plaintiff
chose not to appeal. The decision reinforces the Court's important
gatekeeping role at certification, particularly where, as here, the
plaintiff advances a sprawling, ill-defined and ultimately
speculative case. The outcome was a significant victory for the
defendants including Pharmascience Inc., a Canadian company with no
US operations and no involvement in the US enforcement proceedings
on which the plaintiff's conspiracy theory was based.

Background

The plaintiff, Kathryn Eaton, sought certification on behalf of all
persons in Canada who purchased generic drugs out-of-pocket or
through private drug plans from January 1, 2012 onward, claiming
C$5 billion in damages under the Competition Act. The claim alleged
a broad North American conspiracy involving several generic drug
manufacturers—including companies operating only in Canada—to
fix prices and allocate the generic drug market.

Central to the plaintiff's theory were deferred prosecution
agreements (DPAs) entered into by certain defendants' US parents or
affiliates admitting to price fixing and market allocation in the
United States. Although none of the DPAs referenced Canada, the
plaintiff alleged that the conspiracy extended across North
America, and that the US admissions established some basis in fact
for parallel conduct in Canada.

In order to try to Canadianize the conspiracy, the plaintiff
alleged that the Canadian generic drug market is conducive to
collusion and that manufacturers price the drugs they sell to
pharmacies in a manner that artificially inflates those prices and
limits competition. In attempting to make that case, the plaintiff
invoked the way that generic pharmaceutical manufacturers react to
the provincially regulated pricing frameworks in which they operate
as evidence of the alleged conspiracy. The Court found no support
in the evidence adduced by the plaintiff for any of this theory.

The Ruling: Four Out of Five Criteria Failed

The Federal Court held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy four of
the five certification criteria under Rule 334.16(1) of the Federal
Courts Rules, finding that: (a) the statement of claim disclosed no
reasonable cause of action; (b) there were no common issues of law
or fact; (c) a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure;
and (d) there was no suitable class representative. The motion was
dismissed without leave to amend, bringing the case to an end.

Central to the decision was the Court's finding that the
plaintiff's 700-plus paragraph statement of claim, despite its
length, lacked any meaningful particulars of how each defendant
actually participated in the alleged conspiracy. Instead, the
plaintiff "lumped" the defendants together with bald allegations,
unsupported by material facts connecting the alleged conspiracy to
Canada. Much of the pleading was derived wholesale from US
proceedings without being connected to Canada, and where it
addressed Canadian-specific conduct, it lacked particulars.

On the evidence, the Court found that US litigation materials
offered "little support" for the plaintiff's claims, as the
Canadian and American generic drug markets are "separate and
distinct," with different regulatory frameworks. The Court also
rejected the plaintiff's characterization of off-invoice discounts
sometimes used by manufacturers to compete for pharmacy business as
illegal "kickbacks". The Court recognized they are in fact
permitted under Canada's regulatory framework and represent a
recognized form of competition among generic manufacturers,
consistent with findings by the Competition Bureau and the Ontario
Superior Court in Spina v. Shoppers Drug Mart Inc., 2023 ONSC
1086.

Throughout the decision, the Federal Court endorsed its view in
Jensen v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd., 2021 FC 1185 (affirmed 2023
FCA 89) that certification is designed to be a "meaningful
screening device," not a "rubber-stamping exercise or symbolic
review", and that a section 45 conspiracy claim cannot proceed on
"pure speculation or wishful thinking".

Key Takeaways

     1. You cannot import a US conspiracy into Canada: Admissions
or guilty pleas in the US do not in every case establish some basis
in fact for a conspiracy in Canada. The Court found the Canadian
and US generic drug markets separate and distinct—with different
regulators, no reciprocity in drug approvals, no product
interchangeability.

     2. Plead with particularity, or don't plead at all: A
conspiracy claim must set out the particular acts of each
co-conspirator. "Lumping" several defendants together with bald
allegations without material facts will not survive certification.

     3. Corporate separateness matters: Plaintiffs cannot assume
that the acts of a US parent or affiliate are attributable to a
Canadian subsidiary without pleading material facts supporting an
agency relationship or piercing the corporate veil.

     4. "Conducive to collusion" does not equate to collusion:
Expert evidence that a market structure could theoretically support
a conspiracy is not evidence that one actually exists. Following
Jensen, the Federal Court confirmed that the "some basis in fact"
standard demands more than a description of market conditions that
might facilitate collusion.

     5. Certification is a gatekeeping exercise, not a rubber
stamp: The Court will not wave through sprawling competition class
actions that lack Canada-specific evidence and proper pleading.

The decision makes clear that plaintiffs cannot rely on US
enforcement actions as a substitute for properly pleaded and
supported claims in Canadian courts and underscores the rigorous
pleading and evidentiary standards that must be met before
competition class actions of this scale will be certified.[GN]

TOYOTA INDUSTRIES: Settles Defective Forklifts Suit for $299.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Toyota agreed to a $299.5 million
settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming that it sold
defective internal combustion (IC) forklifts that failed to meet
emissions standards.

The class action settlement benefits individuals and entities that
purchased or leased a Toyota forklift with an IC engine built
between 2007 and 2021 and sold in the United States.

The settlement covers Toyota forklifts sold with any of the
following engines and emissions certification years: 2014–2021
1KD, 2014–2021 1ZS, 2013–2021 1FS and 2007-2021 4Y.

According to the class action lawsuit, Toyota sold IC forklifts
that were not certified to meet emissions standards. Plaintiffs in
the case say that they were forced to pay for emissions-related
repairs and other costs associated with the defective forklifts.

Toyota is a manufacturer of various vehicles, including forklifts.

Toyota has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $299.5
million class action settlement to resolve the allegations.

Under the terms of the Toyota settlement, class members can receive
a cash payment, a service plan visit and a new parts warranty.

Class members can receive between $1,000 and $2,500 per eligible
forklift, depending on the number of claims filed with the
settlement.

The service plan visit will cover labor and travel costs for one
visit per operable forklift. This visit will include an inspection
of the forklift's major systems and other services.

The new parts warranty will apply to new engine parts installed
during a government-approved recall for the settlement class
forklift.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 1, 2026.

The final approval hearing for the Toyota settlement is scheduled
for July 9, 2026.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Sept. 22, 2026.

Who's Eligible

The class action settlement benefits those who purchased or leased
certain Toyota forklifts with internal combustion engines built
between 2007 and 2021, including those sold with the following
engines: 2014-2021 1KD, 2014-2021 1ZS, 2013-2021 1FS and 2007-2021
4Y.

Potential Award
Up to $2,500 in cash payments, a free service plan visit and a new
parts warranty in the event of a recall.

Proof of Purchase
Model and serial number of the forklift, proof of ownership or
lease

Claim Form

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
09/22/2026

Case Name
Broadmoor Lumber & Plywood Co., et al. v. Toyota Industries Corp.,
et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-06640-JSC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California

Final Hearing
07/09/2026

Settlement Website
ForkliftSettlement.com

Claims Administrator

     Toyota Forklift Settlement Administrator
     P.O. Box 301132
     Los Angeles, CA 90030-1132
     admin@forkliftsettlement.com
     (888) 226-4715

Class Counsel

     David Stellings, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP

          - and -

     Roland Tellis, Esq.
     BARON & BUDD P.C.

Defense Counsel

     Keri Borders, Esq.
     Alexander Calfo, Esq.
     KING & SPALDING LLP [GN]

UNION BANK: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.4-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Union Bank and Trust
has agreed to a $2,389,976 settlement to resolve claims in a class
action lawsuit filed over an alleged vulnerability in a file
transfer software used by the bank, called MOVEit, that was
exploited by cybercriminals to gain access to the private
information of Union Bank and Trust customers in May 2023.

The nearly $2.4 million Union Bank and Trust class action
settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 9,
2026 and covers all individuals in the United States whose personal
information was included in the files affected by the May 2023
MOVEit security incident.

The settlement agreement states that there are approximately
207,824 individuals covered by the deal.

According to the agreement, Union Bank and Trust (UBT) settlement
class members who file a timely, valid claim form will have
multiple options for reimbursement.

Class members who submit with their claim form proof of ordinary
losses stemming from the breach are eligible to receive up to
$2,500 in reimbursement. The settlement benefits plan explains that
ordinary losses include out-of-pocket expenses like fees for credit
reports, credit monitoring, identity theft insurance, bank fees,
and miscellaneous expenses, like postage.

Under this reimbursement option, class members may also receive
compensation for up to four hours of lost time spent responding to
the breach, at a rate of $25 per hour, subject to the $2,500
maximum total relief for ordinary losses.

Moreover, UBT settlement class members who submit with their claim
form proof of extraordinary losses stemming from the breach are
eligible to receive up to $10,000 in reimbursement. According to
the agreement, extraordinary losses may include proven monetary
losses, professional fees (such as attorneys’ fees and
accountants’ fees), and fees for credit repair services.

Instead of claiming compensation for a documented ordinary or
extraordinary loss, class members may file a claim form to receive
a one-time alternative cash payment with no proof required. The
final amount of this payment is estimated to be $100, the agreement
relays, but may increase or decrease depending on the number of
claims filed.

In addition to any monetary benefits, all settlement class members
may also file a claim to receive an enrollment code for two years
of three-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft protection.

The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the UBT
data breach settlement following a hearing scheduled for August 6,
2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members
only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved.

The Union Bank and Trust class action lawsuit claimed that the
private information of accountholders at the Nebraska-based bank
was potentially compromised after cybercriminals gained
unauthorized access to the MOVEit file transfer service used by
UBT, and many other parties, sometime between May 27, 2023 and May
31, 2023. Per court documents, the files compromised during the
MOVEit data breach may have contained names, addresses, dates of
birth, contact information and Social Security numbers. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Discloses Victim-Identifying Info, Jane Doe Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE 1, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and GOOGLE LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-02624 (N.D. Cal., March 26, 2026) is a
class action for injunctive relief and damages arising from the
wrongful disclosure and republication of victim-identifying
information of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse survivors.

The complaint relates that the Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 and Class
members are survivors of sexual abuse perpetrated by Jeffrey
Epstein. Their identities as Epstein survivors are deeply private
matters involving the most sensitive and intimate details of their
personal histories. Plaintiff and Class members have identified
themselves or were otherwise identified to the United States
government as Epstein victims. Plaintiff and Class members'
identities and personally identifiable information must be
protected from public disclosure under federal law, including the
Privacy Act; the Crime Victims' Rights Act; and other state and
federal victim-protection, constitutional provisions, and
common-law privacy protections and data-security requirements. On
December 19, 2025 until January 30, 2026, the DOJ and other federal
agencies undertook several massive public releases of unredacted
records related to the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's
criminal conduct. These releases included millions of pages of
investigative files, victim statements, witness interviews,
correspondence, and other materials posted on a publicly accessible
DOJ website and transmitted to Congress. After the January 30, 2026
release, the United States acknowledged for the first time that it
had released several thousand pages of unredacted records revealing
the personally identifiable information of Epstein's survivors,
including Plaintiff and Class members.

As a result, Plaintiff and Class members' PII, including some
combination of their full names, telephone numbers, email
addresses, cities of residence, occupations, and photographic
images, were disclosed publicly in unredacted documents released by
the DOJ. Survivors now face renewed trauma. Strangers call them,
email them, threaten their physical safety, and accuse them of
conspiring with Epstein when they are, in reality, Epstein's
victims, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this action for damages and to enjoin Google,
which continues to display Plaintiff and Class members' PII in
search results and AI-generated content, despite having actual
knowledge of the unauthorized and unlawful nature of the disclosure
and the severe harm to Plaintiff and Class members, who are crime
victims entitled to privacy protections under federal and state
law.

Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 is a natural person and a resident of
California. Plaintiff is a survivor of sexual abuse perpetrated by
Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff proceeds pseudonymously to protect her
identity and privacy interests, which are the subject of this
litigation.

Defendant United States of America is sued pursuant to the Privacy
Act of 1974 which waives sovereign immunity for certain Privacy Act
violations. The DOJ is a component of the United States and is
responsible for the collection, maintenance, and disclosure of
records in federal systems of records related to the Epstein
investigation and prosecutions. The DOJ is responsible for
publications of Epstein survivors' PII that took place in December
2025 and  January 2026.

Defendant Google is a Delaware limited liability company that
operates the world's predominant internet search engine through its
primary website (http://google.com),artificial intelligence search
tool (Google AI Mode), and web-indexing and caching systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Julie C. Erickson, Esq.
     Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq.
     Kevin M. Osborne, Esq.
     ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP
     959 Natoma Street
     San Francisco, CA 94103
     Telephone: 415-635-0631
     Facsimile: 415-599-8088
     E-mail: julie@eko.law
             elizabeth@eko.law
             kevin@eko.law

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Hoffman Suit Over FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL HOFFMAN, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01768 (E.D. Pa., March 18, 2026)
accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees are
individuals who are, or were, employed by Defendant as police
sergeants. For many years, the Defendant has allegedly
misclassified its police sergeants as exempt employees and failed
and refused to pay them overtime pay as required by the FLSA,
despite knowing that these sergeants work far more than 40 hours
per week.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself
and similarly situated individuals who have been denied timely
payment of overtime wages in violation of the FLSA.

The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania operates as an
educational institute that provides undergraduate and graduate
programs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         M. Frances Ryan, Esq.
         WUSINICH, SWEENEY & RYAN, LLC
         102 Pickering Way, Suite 403
         Exton, PA 19341
         Telephone: (610) 594-1600
         E-mail: mfrancesryan@wusinichsweeney.com

VODAFONE GROUP: Court Orders Split Trial in GBP85-Mil. Suit Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Rigby, writing for Global Legal Post, reports that a High Court
judge has ordered a split trial in an GBP85m claim brought by 62
former franchisees against Vodafone UK, a part of the wider
Vodafone Group, over alleged mistreatment and governance failings,
which the telecoms giant firmly denies.

The first trial will deal with liability, while the second will
address any damages, avoiding what counsel for the claimants, David
Lewis KC of Gatehouse Chambers, called an "extremely complex and
unwieldy" single trial.

Both parties sought to split the proceedings, which was approved by
Mr Justice Bryan. However, there are significant risks of increased
costs and delays arising from any potential appeals from the claim,
which was launched in December 2024.

The claim proceeded to a case management hearing following a failed
mediation in May 2025.  

Writing in 2025, franchising experts Rachel Bowley and Gordon
Drakes of Fieldfisher said: "Should this proceed to trial, it will
be a significant case within the franchising sector," adding it
would likely hinge on issues around duties of good faith and other
legal obligations, both of which have featured in recent franchise
case law.

The claimants contend that Vodafone breached its duty of good faith
by implementing irrational, capricious and arbitrary decisions
affecting the franchisees, leading to significant financial damage
and enduring mental health issues. Some members of Parliament have
compared the case to the Post Office scandal.

Andrew Kerr, a spokesperson for the claimants, said: "For years,
Vodafone has failed to answer serious questions about what went
wrong in its franchise programme. Now those questions will be
tested in open court.

He added that while the claimants remained "open to a fair
outcome", they were "fully prepared to see this through the courts
to secure justice".

Vodafone has strongly rejected any comparisons to the Post Office
scandal, stating it was inappropriate and not based on fact; any
changes in commercial relationships, they have argued, were
necessary and fully transparent, with decisions made commercially.
The company insisted it had never misrepresented facts or concealed
information -- all allegations made against the Post Office in that
litigation and subsequent public inquiry.

Vodafone added that it had not taken legal action to recover any
sums owed by the claimants, unlike the private prosecutions brought
by the Post Office against the now-vindicated sub-postmasters.

A spokesperson for Vodafone said: "We continue to run a successful
franchise business in the UK with over 350 stores," adding that
many such partners had expanded their business with them.

"We reject the claims and will continue to robustly defend all
aspects of this commercial dispute," the spokesperson added. "We
have engaged in efforts to resolve the matter with the claimants,
including making a reasonable offer to settle. We have every
confidence in our case and the court process, and in the absence of
reaching a settlement, we remain firmly committed to resolving this
dispute through the courts."

The claimants are represented by Gatehouse Chambers' Lewis, along
with Emma Hynes, James Shaw and Alice Whyte, instructed by Bird &
Bird partner Victoria Hobbs and Knights partners Russell Ford,
Alicia West and their legal teams.

Vodafone has instructed Brick Court's Jasbir Dhillon KC, Tom Wood
and Danielle Carrington, instructed by TLT partner Ed Fiddick. TLT
declined to comment. The proceedings are continuing, with a second
case management conference set for later this year. [GN]

WAGNER SPRAY: Sells Defective Power Steamers, Santana Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR SANTANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WAGNER SPRAY TECH CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 0:26-cv-02097 (D. Minn., March 31, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of State Consumer Fraud Acts,
State Consumer Protection Statutes, California's False Advertising
Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's
Unfair Competition Law, breach of implied warranties, and breach of
express warranty.

The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing, and
sale of defective power steamers. According to the complaint, the
Defendant's steamers include an attached hose that can get
excessively hot and the nozzle/gun can expel hot water during use
and after the trigger is engaged, posing a serious burn hazard to
consumers. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known
the truth, they would not have purchased the steamers or would have
paid less for them.

Wagner Spray Tech Corporation is a manufacturer of equipment and
systems for surface coating, headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP
      5775 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 620
      St. Louis Park, MN 55416
      Telephone: (612) 254-7288
      Email: rkshelquist@cuneolaw.com
  
              - and -

      Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
      Daniel Tomascik, Esq.
      LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
      954 Avenida Ponce De Leon
      Suite 205, #10518
      San Juan, PR 00907
      Telephone: (215) 599-6072
      Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
             dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com
  
              - and -

      Mason A Barney, Esq.
      Leslie Pescia, Esq.
      SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
      745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500
      New York, NY 10151
      Telephone: (212) 532-1091
      Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
             lpescia@sirillp.com

WALMART INC: Agrees to Settle Telecheck Fees Class Suit for $1.85MM
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Walmart agreed to a $1.85 million
class action settlement to resolve claims that its check processing
disclosures failed to inform customers that they may incur multiple
bank fees for insufficient funds.

The Walmart settlement provides non-monetary benefits to all
customers who wrote a check for payment of goods or services at any
Walmart retail store in the United States.

According to the class action lawsuit, Walmart's check processing
disclosures did not sufficiently inform shoppers that Walmart, and
its check processor TeleCheck, might make multiple attempts to cash
bounced checks and, if successful, might also make multiple
attempts to recover "return fees" from shoppers' bank accounts.

The plaintiff in the case says she and other customers were damaged
when they incurred multiple bank fees as a result of Walmart and
TeleCheck repeatedly attempting to collect the underlying check
amount and the return fee.

Walmart is a retail store with locations across the country.
TeleCheck is a check verification and check guarantee company that
works with retailers, such as Walmart.

Walmart has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay a $1.85
million class action settlement to resolve the TeleCheck class
action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the Walmart settlement, Walmart has agreed to
change its check-processing disclosures at the point of sale and
PIN pad in each of its retail stores in the United States.

The deadline to object to the settlement is April 23, 2026.

The final approval hearing for the Walmart class action settlement
is scheduled for May 13, 2026.

No claim form is required since the settlement provides no monetary
relief. To object, you must send a written document by mail or
private courier by the due date of April 23, 2026.

Who's Eligible
The class action settlement benefits all past and future customers
who wrote a check for payment of goods or services at any Walmart
retail store in the United States.

Potential Award
The settlement does not provide monetary relief. Instead, Walmart
will change check-processing disclosures at the point of sale and a
PIN pad in each of its retail stores in the United States.

Proof of Purchase
N/A

Objection Deadline
04/23/2026

Case Name
Morris v. Walmart Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00016-SPW-TJC, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana

Final Hearing
05/13/2026

Settlement Website
CheckPolicySettlement.com

Claims Administrator
N/A

Class Counsel

     Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
     Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
     KALIELGOLD PLLC
    
          - and -

     James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
     Ian J. Engdahl, Esq.
     Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP

Defense Counsel

     Suyash Agrawal, Esq.
     Hillary W. Coustan, Esq.
     MASSEY & GAIL LLP

          - and -

     John W. Peterson, Esq.
     Kymberly Whitaker, Esq.
     Matthew S. Knoop, Esq.
     POLSINELLI P.C. [GN]

WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS: Grill Brushes Pose Serious Ingestion Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that two consumers filed a class action
lawsuit against Weber-Stephen Products, LLC.

Why: The plaintiffs claim Weber failed to warn consumers that its
metal wire bristle grill brushes pose a serious ingestion hazard.

Where: The Weber grill brush class action lawsuit was filed in
Illinois federal court.

A new class action lawsuit accuses Weber of failing to warn
consumers that its metal wire bristle grill brushes pose a serious
ingestion hazard.

Plaintiffs Richard Malmstein and Geoffrey vonMaucher filed the
Weber class action complaint against Weber-Stephen Products, LLC on
March 9 in a Illinois federal court, alleging violations of state
and federal consumer laws.

According to the class action lawsuit, Weber sells metal wire
bristle grill brushes with model numbers 6277, 6278, 6463, 6464,
6493 and 6494 that can shed bristles during normal use, creating a
risk of serious internal injuries if ingested.

The lawsuit claims that Weber failed to disclose this safety hazard
to consumers, even though it was aware of the risk.

The plaintiffs allege that Weber's grill brushes are unsafe for
their intended use and that consumers had a reasonable expectation
that they would not pose a serious ingestion hazard.

The lawsuit cites a recall announced by the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) on Feb. 26, 2026, which warned that small
metal wire bristles can detach from the brushes, stick to the grill
or food and pose a risk of serious internal injuries that could
require surgery.

Lawsuit: Weber recall does not adequately remedy consumers'
damages

The Weber grill brush recall affected approximately 3.2 million
units sold nationwide for $10 to $17 each.

The lawsuit alleges Weber's marketing materials and product
packaging were misleading because they emphasized the brushes'
durability and effectiveness without warning consumers about the
risk of bristle detachment.

The plaintiffs claim that Weber had notice of the ingestion hazard
prior to the recall through consumer reviews and other information,
but continued to sell the brushes without adequate warnings or
redesign.

The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a nationwide class of
consumers who purchased one or more of the recalled grill brushes
for household use within any applicable limitations period. They
are also seeking to represent subclasses of consumers in New York
and Colorado.

The class action lawsuit is seeking damages, restitution and
injunctive relief on behalf of the proposed classes. It alleges
that Weber violated the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, New York
General Business Law and other laws by failing to warn consumers
about the ingestion hazard and by selling a defective product.

The lawsuit also claims that Weber was unjustly enriched by selling
the unsafe grill brushes and that the recall does not adequately
remedy consumers' damages.

The plaintiffs are represented by Tyler Litke of Levi & Korsinsky
LLP.

The Weber class action lawsuit is Malmstein, et al. v.
Weber-Stephen Products LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01401, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN]

WOUND TECHNOLOGY: Failed to Keep Private Info Secure, Dixon Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONNIE DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WOUND TECHNOLOGY NETWORK, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 6:26-cv-00653 (M.D. Fla., March 25, 2026) is a class
action against the Defendant  for its failure to secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information ("PII") and
protected health information ("PHI") of Plaintiff and Class Members
(collectively, "Private Information").

The complaint relates that in the regular course of its business,
Woundtech collects and maintains highly sensitive patient data,
including clinical notes, medical diagnoses, health insurance
information, and clinical wound-treatment photographs. Woundtech is
required to maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to
protect this information from unauthorized access and disclosure.
Between December 6 and December 9, 2025, one or more unauthorized
individuals infiltrated Defendant's network environment and
exfiltrated patient data from Defendant's cloud-hosted systems (the
"Data Breach"). According to public reporting, a threat actor group
known as "FulcrumSec" subsequently claimed responsibility for the
attack, alleging that it exfiltrated a substantial volume of data,
including clinical wound photographs, clinical notes, referral
documents, and patient demographic records, and published portions
of the stolen data on the internet.

As a result of Woundtech's failure to provide reasonable and
adequate data security, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information has been compromised. According to public reporting,
threat actors associated with the breach claimed to have
exfiltrated highly sensitive patient data, including clinical wound
photographs and treatment-related records. Plaintiff and the Class
have suffered concrete injuries, including loss of privacy,
emotional distress, loss of the benefit of their bargain with
Defendant, and an increased risk of identity theft and medical
identity theft, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this action to seek redress for these
injuries, including out-of-pocket costs incurred to mitigate the
risk of future harm, compensation for time and effort spent
responding to the Data Breach, and injunctive relief requiring
Woundtech to implement and maintain reasonable data security
practices.

Plaintiff Connie Dixon is a former patient of Woundtech who
received in-home wound care services from Defendant. In connection
with that care, Woundtech collected sensitive personal and medical
information about Plaintiff, including treatment photographs and
related medical records. In March 2026, Defendant notified
Plaintiff that her Private Information was compromised in the Data
Breach.

Defendant Wound Technology Network, Inc. is a healthcare provider
with its principal place of business in Orlando, Florida, that
provides mobile, in-home wound care services to patients across the
country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert R. Jimenez, Esq.
     BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DeMAY PLLC
     201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
     Miami, FL 33134
     Telephone: (786) 206-7896
     E-mail: rjimenez@brysonpllc.com
     Secondary E-mails: lblanco@brysonpllc.com;
                        ajaramillo@brysonpllc.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 ***