260609.mbx

260609.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 9, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 114 Headlines 1UP REPAIRS: Hannan Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA A&H SECURITY: Blanch Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA A.T. STILL UNIVERSITY: Immigrant Students' Suit Deal Gets Final OK ADT INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Moore Alleges AGI GROUND: Almeida Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ALTA RESOURCES: Agrees to $675,000 Data Breach Class Settlement AMAZON.COM INC: Merewhuader Fraud Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. AMAZON.COM INC: Refuses to Seek Tariff Refunds, Class Suit Claims AMAZON.COM INC: Sued Over Privacy Violations of Doorbell Cameras AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Removes Mares Suit to E.D. Calif. ARCHER DANIELS: Class-Action Nears Key Ruling After Fifth Motion AUTODESK INC: Dismissal of Class Action Under Appeal BADGER METER: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit BELKIN INTERNATIONAL: Yeh Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to C.D. Cal. BENTLEY SEEDS: Ramirez Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website BLACK GOLD: Cow Manure Products Contains PFAS, Acosta Alleges BLUE CROSS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brooks Alleges BROOME COUNTY, NY: Faces Class Suit Over Jail Salmonella Outbreak CALIX INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 27 CALIX INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 27 CARGILL INC: Sweetener Made from Erythritol, Graglia Alleges CASELY INC: Ayala Sues Over Defective Wireless Power Banks CHAMPIONX CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 14 CHARLTON ARIA: Faces Consolidated Derivative Actions CLINICAL REGISTRY: Dowdell Sues Over Inadequate Data Security CMC VS: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Suit Alleges COLLIGERE FARM: Arellano Seeks Class Certification COVIDIEN LP: Judge Approves Bid for Surgical Mesh Compensation CRAFTMIX INC: Cardenas Sues Over Mislabeled Drink Mix Products CRAFTMIX INC: Cardenas Sues Over Mislabeled Drink Mix Products DERICK DERMATOLOGY: Agrees to $1MM Tracking Pixel Class Settlement DERICK DERMATOLOGY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1-Mil. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Extends Time to Complete Class Cert Discovery DRIVESTREAM INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Anderson Alleges EDDIE BAUER: Court Stays Parra Class Action Due to Bankruptcy EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES : ClassAction.org Probes Data Breach EL SHOPPING: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Brito Says ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Sued Over Defective Frigidaire Gas Ranges ENTRATA INC: Faces Fish Class Action Suit Over Junk Fees EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Baker Says EXPEDITED TRAVEL: Faces Class Suit Over RushMyPassport Services EYEBUYDIRECT INC: Faces Darr Suit Over TCPA Violations FANATICS LLC: Agrees to Settles Handling Fees Class Action Suit FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Removes Aldrich Suit to C.D. Calif. FLOW CRYPTOCURRENCY: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims FMC SERVICES: Agrees to Settle 2022 Data Breach Suit for $2.15MM FORD MOTOR: Raser Sues Over Improper Business Practices FURNISHED FINDER: Clough Sues Over Unwanted Calls and Text Messages FUTURHEALTH INC: Boyle Sues Over Deceptive Weight Loss Program GASTRO HEALTH: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach GASTRO HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Gange Says GENERAC POWER: Settles Defective Solar Panels' Suit for $15MM GENERAC POWER: Yafchak Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Ill. GENERAL MOTORS: Gonzalez Balks at Vehicles' Water Intrusion Defect GKN AEROSPACE: Page Sues Over Mishandling of Hazardous Chemicals HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Recalls Motorcycles Due to Oil Defect Risk HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Rutherford Loses Bid for Class Certification HEALTHEQUITY INC: Renewed Bid to Compel Arbitration Filed HORMEL FOODS: Trial Set in Turkey Antitrust MDL IAMP LLC: Faces Dormeus Suit Over Alleged Racial Discrimination IL LEONE LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Calle Suit Alleges INDUSTRIAL ACCEPTANCE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Secures Dismissal of Securities Class Suit INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Becker Alleges KIA AMERICA: O'Connell Sues Over Defective Kia Vehicles KRISTI NOEM: Abdo Suit Stayed pending Supreme Court's Decision KRISTI NOEM: Noor Suit Stayed Pending Supreme Court's Decision KRISTI NOEM: Seeks More Time to File Class Certification Response LCPTRACKER INC: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Suit for $495,000 LUCID GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 28 LUCID GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit MEDICAL SOLUTIONS: Mismanages Retirement Plans, Andersen Alleges MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Outlander Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Aug 3 MOTILITY SOFTWARE: Agrees to Settle 2025 Data Breach Class Suit MT. BAKER IMAGING: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $3.3-Mil. MT. BAKER: Agrees to Settle Ransomware Attack Class Suit for $3.3MM NATIONAL BASKETBALL: Faces Suit Over Unfair Telemarketing Messages NEW YORK, NY: ACS Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Child Removals NEW YORK: Class Cert. Bid Filing in De Souza Due August 28 NEWREZ LLC: Faces Perez Suit Over Excessive Payoff Quote Fees NORTH AMERICAN: Court Tosses $43.5MM Overtime Class Judgement NORTH BEAM: Intercepts Website Users' Communications, Suit Says NOVUS HOME: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls NYU LANGONE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Singh Suit Alleges OAKLAND CITY UNIVERSITY: Employees Sue Over Missing Paychecks OFFICE DEPOT: Class Certification Bid in Cross Due May 18, 2027 OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Settlement in Derivative Suit Gets Initial OK ORRSTOWN BANK: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach PARADISE MEMORIAL: Jewish Arizonans Sue Suit Over New Safety Policy PHARMAVITE LLC: ADA Suit Settlement Objection Deadline Set Aug 13 PROFESSIONAL ORTHOPEDIC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says RB HEALTH: Faces False Advertising Suit Over Airborne Products REDFIN CORP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sharing User's Data REMEDIAL TRANSPORTATION: Phillips Files Labor Suit in Cal. Super. REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces Braun Suit Over ERISA Violations RICOH USA: Seeks to Strike Phillips' Declaration ROBERT BOSCH: Daniel's Heating & Cooling Alleges HVAC Price-Fixing ROOT TECHNOLOGY: Adinolfi Sues Over Defective Bottle Sterilizer SAIA INC: Mills Bid for Class Certification Due June 15, 2027 SENTINEL ONE: Faces Class and Derivative Actions SIG SAUER: Faces Altman Suit Over Defective P320 Pistol SIVERS SEMICONDUCTORS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims SNOWFLAKE INC: Smith Sues Over Drop in Share Price SYNGENTA CROP: Adams Sues Over Toxic Paraquat Herbicide TAYLOR MORRISON: M&A Investigates Sale to Berkshire Hathaway TESLA INC: Faces False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit in China TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Antitrust Class Suit for $35-Mil. TEXAS W W SOUTH: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind THEMAGIC5 INC: Barlow Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind THOMPSON METAL: Class Cert Bid in Hutchinson Suit Due Nov. 5 THRIVEWORKS ADMINISTRATIVE: Agrees to Settle Privacy Suit for $1.9M TOTAL SYSTEM: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over 8-Speed Automatic Failures TRANE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over HVAC Equipment Monopoly TRANE TECHNOLOGIES: Reliance Sues Over HVAC Equipment Conspiracy TRANSGLOBAL HOLDING: Cummings Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Data TUFT & NEEDLE: Settles Misleading, Fake Sales Class Action for $3MM UFP TECHNOLOGIES: Charlie Sues Over Unprotected Private Information UNITED HOMES: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations UNITED STATES: Judge to Review $1.8BB Anti-Weaponization Fund UNITED STATES: Transgender Patients Sue Over Sharing Patient Info UNIVERSITY OF OREGON: Schroeder Loses Class Certification Bid US FOODS: Employees Sue Over Misappropriated 401(k) Forfeitures VACASA INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit VENEZUELA: Seeks Extension of Class Cert Briefing Deadlines VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Chen Files Fraud Suit in D.N.J. VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Faces Suit Over SUVs' Battery Defect WALMAN OPTICAL: Crimando Sues Over Private Data Breach WALMART INC: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Hiring System in Mass. WALMART INC: Opioid Class Actions Pending in Canadian Court WASHINGTON: Depresses Nurses' Wages, Carlson Suit Claims WATERBOY LLC: Dilena Sues Over Drink Mixes' Deceptive Marketing WHITEPAGES INC: Class Cert Bid in Carrera Due May 26, 2027 WISE GROUP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims WIX.COM LTD: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ZOE LEV: Bowman Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ********* 1UP REPAIRS: Hannan Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR HANNAN, individually and for others similarly situated, v. 1UP REPAIRS, LLC and JOHN CREASY, Case No. 1:26-cv-01462 (W.D. Tex., June 1, 2026) seeks to recover overtime wages and other damages from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and other workers like him regularly worked for in excess of 40 hours But these workers never received overtime as required by the FLSA. Instead, the Defendants improperly classified Plaintiff and those similarly situated workers as exempt employees and paid them a salary with no overtime compensation, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Hannan was a salaried employee. She worked for the Defendants as a Salaried Technician from approximately August 2024 until February 2026. She brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated Salaried Technicians who were classified exempt and paid a salary with no overtime compensation. 1Up operates an electronics repair business in Austin, Texas, specializing in iPhone, computer, and other device repairs for the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 E-mail: carl@fitz.legal A&H SECURITY: Blanch Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARSTON BLANCH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. A&H SECURITY SERVICES, LLC and FELIX CABREJA, Case No. 1:26-cv-04621 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Marston Blanch is an adult who resides in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is a covered employee within the meaning of the FLSA. A&H Security Services, LLC is a security service provider in New York that had an annual dollar volume of sales in excess of $500,000.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Brown, Esq. BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5828 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com A.T. STILL UNIVERSITY: Immigrant Students' Suit Deal Gets Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ MALDEF.org reports that a state judge has granted final approval of a class-action settlement between A.T. Still University (ATSU) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and other immigrant students who were denied enrollment at ATSU's California campus because of their immigration status. MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) filed the lawsuit on behalf of Carlos Alberto Alonso, 29, of San Francisco, a healthcare worker and recipient of DACA, and other prospective students who comprise the settlement class. "Advanced education is a path to the American Dream," said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF president and general counsel. "It should not be denied to immigrants who are prepared to contribute to public health and whose presence in the United States is supported by bipartisan super-majorities." As part of the agreement approved on May 21, 2026, ATSU has agreed to create a settlement fund of $92,800 to compensate the class of prospective students affected by the challenged policy. ATSU will also change its policy of denying admission to educational programs based solely on immigration status, eliminating the harm alleged in the complaint for all future applicants. In addition to payments for each of the 29 class members, the settlement will provide cy pres funds to immigrant-serving non-profit groups. The university will also pay attorney's fees and other costs. "We are glad that the court recognized the importance of this case and granted final approval," said Luis Lozada, MALDEF staff attorney. "This case represents a small step forward for DACA recipients and non-permanent immigrants to be considered on the same grounds as U.S. citizens when applying for a higher education program, regardless of their immigration status." Alonso, a disease control investigator at major San Francisco hospitals, considered applying to ATSU's Central Coast Physician Assistant (CCPA) program in November 2023. According to the lawsuit, the program's application stated that only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents could apply. After asking about his eligibility, Alonso was informed that DACA recipients would be rejected because of their "non-permanent" status. Despite his educational and professional experience, Alonso was denied the ability to enroll solely because of his immigration status. The suit challenged ATSU's policy as a violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on citizenship and immigration status, among other characteristics. The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara. ATSU is based in Kirkville, Missouri, and has campuses in Arizona and California. It was the world's first osteopathic medical school and has an average annual enrollment of more than 3,900 students from around the world. Since 2017, MALDEF has filed more than 20 lawsuits challenging discriminatory enrollment policies and other consumer practices that block immigrants from accessing higher education, financial institutions, and other businesses. [GN] ADT INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Moore Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- CARYLON MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADT INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:26-cv-80611-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, on April 20, 2026, a group of cybercriminals (using the online moniker 'ShinyHunters') infiltrated Defendant's computer systems, accessed and exfiltrated file repositories that contained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Sensitive Private Information (the "Data Breach"). By collecting and maintaining Plaintiff and the Class Members' Sensitive Private Information, Defendant was required by law to exercise reasonable care and comply with industry and statutory requirements to protect that information. Indeed, the Defendant acknowledges that its "customers don't want their data in the wrong hands, which is why ADT has specific in-house regulations to protect customer data privacy and safety." Despite this known risk, the Defendant failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity safeguards appropriate to the nature and scope of the data it collected and retained, says the suit. ADT Inc. provides commercial security systems and services. The Company offers home and business automation solutions which includes temperature, burglary, flood, fire and smoke, and medical alert monitoring, as well as security cameras, remote access, and wireless home security systems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. June Pineda Hoidal, Esq. Michael L. Laird, Esq. Benjamin R. Cooper, Esq. Madison M. Demaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com june.hoidal@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com benjamin.cooper@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com AGI GROUND: Almeida Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice -------------------------------------------------------------- RONY ALMEIDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGI GROUND, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-23532-JB (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the 60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the suit. AGI Ground, Inc. is a US-owned, ground handling company in North America, providing ground, cargo, mail handling, and security services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com - and - Marc A. Wites, Esq. WITES & ROGERS, P.A. 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 Telephone: (954) 933-4400 Email: mwites@witeslaw.com ALTA RESOURCES: Agrees to $675,000 Data Breach Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received a notice stating the November 2023 Alta Resources Corp. data breach potentially compromised their private information may be eligible to claim up to $2,000 and/or credit monitoring from a class action settlement. Alta Resources Corp. agreed to pay $675,000 to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging a cyberattack exposed sensitive personal and health information. Who is eligible to file a claim? The class includes individuals who received a notice from Alta Resources Corp. indicating a November 2023 data breach may have impacted their private information. How much can class members get? Class members may claim one of two types of reimbursement: -- Expense reimbursement: Up to $2,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses, such as: -- Losses due to identity theft or fraud -- Fees for credit reports, credit monitoring or freezing/unfreezing credit -- Costs to replace IDs -- Postage to contact banks or other institutions by mail -- Alternative cash payment: A one-time pro rata payment estimated at $50. The actual amount may be higher or lower depending on the number of valid claims submitted. No documentation is required for this option. All class members are also eligible for two years of credit monitoring by a credit bureau. This benefit comes with $1 million in identity theft insurance, real-time credit file monitoring, dark web scanning and public records monitoring. How to claim a settlement payment Class members can file an online claim or download, print and complete a PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Aug. 17, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Alta Data Breach Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799 Class members may also request a paper claim form by calling or emailing the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's phone number: 833-386-6489 Settlement administrator's email: info@AltaResourcesSettlement.com Is proof or documentation required to submit a claim? -- For expense reimbursement, class members must provide third-party documentation, such as bank statements, receipts or other records showing the expenses or losses and their relation to the data breach. Class members may submit self-prepared notes to support their claim, but they are not valid on their own. -- For the alternative cash payment or credit monitoring, no documentation is required. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Physical check (mailed to the address provided on the claim form) $675,000 settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund of $675,000 covers: Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: $225,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $1,000 each to seven representatives ($7,000 total) -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: June 2, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: July 6, 2026 When is the Alta Resources Corp. data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments no later than 45 days after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Alta Resources Corp. failed to adequately protect sensitive personal information during a targeted cyberattack in November 2023. The plaintiffs claimed an unauthorized party accessed files containing sensitive personal and health information. Alta Resources Corp. denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties of further litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $2,000 plus credit monitoring Deadline: August 17, 2026 [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Merewhuader Fraud Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case BILL MEREWHUADER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC. et al., Case No. 26STCV10457, 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 May 13, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05164-PA-DSR to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Amazon arising from its unfair and deceptive scheme of designing, manufacturing, distributing, advertising, marketing, and selling its first- and second-generation Fire TV Stick streaming device as an "instant" media streaming stick with no "buffering" so that shows "start instantly," and then later "bricking" its first- and second-generation Fire TV Stick devices rendering them nearly inoperable. Amazon.com, Inc. is a multinational technology company headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie Yongsun Park, Esq. MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP 12531 High Bluff Drive San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 720-5100 Facsimile: (858) 720-5125 Email: juliepark@mofo.com - and - Justin Kareem Rezkalla, Esq. MORRISON FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 892-5200 Facsimile: (213) 892-5454 Email: jrezkalla@mofo.com - and - Mallory A. Gitt, Esq. MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP 925 Fourth Avenue Floor 38 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 327-6500 Facsimile: (206) 260-8813 Email: mgitt@mofo.com AMAZON.COM INC: Refuses to Seek Tariff Refunds, Class Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Amazon has refused to seek a tariff refund from the federal government because it aims to "curry favor" with President Donald Trump by allowing the administration to retain the money, to the detriment of consumers who paid inflated prices for imported goods. The 21-page lawsuit charges that Amazon's decision to forgo tariff reimbursement -- to which it is legally entitled in full from the federal government -- —serves the e-commerce giant's "own political and commercial interests" at the expense of consumers who "bore the tariff costs in the first place" by way of higher prices. "Amazon has not returned any portion of those costs it passed on to consumers, and it has no intention of doing so," the complaint summarizes. "It has, in short, generated and retained a windfall from unlawful government action, and consumers -- not Amazon -- are the ones left paying for it." Shortly after the February 20, 2026 Supreme Court decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs overstepped the bounds of presidential authority, the Court of International Trade on March 4 ordered Customs and Border Protection to refund IEEPA tariff fees, saying that "[a]ll importers of record" are "entitled to the benefit" of the ruling, the case states. Importers of record take legal responsibility for compliance with import guidelines, pay tariffs and sign customs declarations when goods enter the country, per the filing. Although Amazon is "legally entitled" to hundreds of millions of dollars in refunds from the federal government, the suit conveys that the retailer has decided to forego recovery to "ingratiate itself" with the president, who previously stated that he would "remember" which companies declined to seek refunds. The filing contends that Amazon deceived consumers by not disclosing that it would not seek a refund of unlawful IEEPA tariffs, even if they were later invalidated. Regardless of Amazon's apparent political maneuvering, "[t]he problem is that the funds Amazon is using to stay in the President's good graces do not belong to Amazon," the case contends. The lawsuit says that the funds instead belong to consumers, who shouldered the economic burden of tariff-related price increases. Tariff-related price increases had an enormous impact on consumers, the lawsuit says, citing a Wall Street Journal study of 2,500 products that indicated that prices for relatively inexpensive goods sold on Amazon increased 5.2 percent between January and July 2025, even as competitors like Walmart lowered their prices. Price increases far outpaced the current inflation rate of two percent for core goods, the suit conveys. The Amazon tariff class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals who, during the period beginning on February 4, 2025 through February 20, 2026, purchased any good subject to IEEPA tariffs from Amazon's online stores and paid a surcharge to cover the IEEPA tariffs. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Sued Over Privacy Violations of Doorbell Cameras ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Silberling, writing for TechCrunch, reports that Amazon was sued on Monday, June 1, over alleged privacy violations from its Ring doorbell cameras. The class action lawsuit, filed in Seattle by Virginia resident Charles Sigwalt, claims that Ring's Familiar Faces feature stores images of passersby without consent. Ring announced the Familiar Faces feature last September and faced pushback from consumer protection organizations like the EFF, as well as Senator Ed Markey (D-MA). But the company moved forward with its plans to launch the feature in December. Familiar Faces lets Ring users identify people who regularly come to their home through AI facial recognition. That way, if a regular guest, like a family member, mail carrier, or neighbor, comes to the door, the device will be able to recognize them and deliver more specific notifications like "Dad is at the door," rather than "A person is at the door." Ring users have to opt in to this feature, but privacy advocates noted that the people who walk past these Ring doorbells have not consented to these facial-recognition scans. That same concern is at the center of this class action lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, "Millions of other Americans passed by a Ring security camera and unknowingly had their facial recognition information collected." Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. At the time the feature was released, the company stated that face data is encrypted and never shared; unidentified faces are automatically removed after 30 days. Amazon's Ring has a record of concerning behaviors regarding user privacy. In 2023, Amazon settled with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and paid a $5.8 million fine over allegations that the company's staff and contractors had improperly accessed private videos from women customers; the FTC's complaint said that every employee had full access to every customer video, even if the worker had no need to access that footage. Ring has also maintained relationships with law enforcement and once granted police the ability to request Ring footage from users without a warrant. After airing a Super Bowl ad to introduce Search Party, an AI-powered feature that uses Ring footage to find lost pets, the company faced similar backlash. Days later, Ring canceled its plans to partner with video surveillance company Flock Safety, which has reportedly given footage to ICE and other federal agencies. When Ring founder Jamie Siminoff spoke with TechCrunch after Ring canceled its arrangement with Flock Safety, he indicated that the deal would've created too much of a "workload." [GN] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Removes Mares Suit to E.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of NICHOLAS BRUCE MARES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC; LAST PIECE LOGISTICS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno (Case No. 22CECG03995) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 21, 2026. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03914-JLT-EPG to the proceeding. Amazon.com Services LLC provides e-commerce services. The Company retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels, and accessories. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq. Eva M. Nofri, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 Email: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com eva.nofri@morganlewis.com ARCHER DANIELS: Class-Action Nears Key Ruling After Fifth Motion ---------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Neeley of DTN reports that a federal judge in an ongoing class-action lawsuit against Archer Daniels Midland may be getting closer to rendering a final decision on whether to allow a key witness to testify in an ongoing ethanol markets lawsuit. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois is again considering whether an economic model created by an expert witness works and whether the witness hired by the plaintiff, AOT Holding AG, should be excluded from testifying. In recent months, ADM filed its fifth motion to exclude witness Shaun D. Ledgerwood from presenting his findings using a so-called regression analysis model he created on behalf of AOT and Maize Capital Group LLC, a second plaintiff in a related case. That model, AOT alleges, shows ADM manipulated the ethanol market at the Argo terminal in Illinois. Ledgerwood is a principal at the Brattle Group, Inc. and a former economist at the Office of Enforcement of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The court issued an order on May 28, 2026, directing the court's independent expert to further study the validity of the model. The requests made by the court in the new order suggest a final decision on Ledgerwood may soon be made. BOTTOM LINE ASSESSMENT REQUESTED The court is asking Professor Michael Wooldridge to consider three specific issues as they relate to the Ledgerwood model, concluding with a "bottom line" assessment of the model. Wooldridge, an Ashall Professor of Foundations of Artificial Intelligence at the University of Oxford, previously testified at an evidentiary hearing that it was improper to award damages for trades on days where there is no price suppression. "Having read the parties' briefs, it has become apparent to the court that it cannot make an informed decision on ADM's motion without the direct input of Professor Wooldridge, the court's appointed neutral expert," the court said in its order. In its fifth motion filed with the court to exclude the witness, ADM argues Ledgerwood's model calculates damages even on days when there was no price suppression. According to the order, ADM argues the model could be generating hundreds of millions of dollars in "phantom" damages. Wooldridge is asked to study whether the model improperly assumes that ADM alone moved ethanol prices, whether the model reliably estimates the price of ethanol derivatives and whether it calculates damages that are attributable to the plaintiffs' theory of liability in the case. "As the court stated at the evidentiary hearing, it is by no means an expert in econometrics," the court said in its order. "Professor Wooldridge should, to the extent practicable, make his report accessible to a layperson with zero background knowledge of econometrics, and who has a rudimentary, college-level knowledge of economics and mathematics." FIRST FOUR MOTIONS The first four motions to exclude Ledgerwood's testimony that were denied by the court, centered on the construction of the Ledgerwood model itself -- essentially the raw ingredients fed into the formula. Attorneys for both parties are required to file a notice with the court after conferring with Wooldridge as to a possible deadline for filing a new report. After the report is filed, according to the order, then both sides will be required to submit a proposed briefing schedule. DTN reached out to Archer Daniels Midland as well as to an attorney representing AOT. AOT and other companies have alleged ADM manipulated ethanol prices, violating the Commodity Exchange Act. Specifically, AOT alleged ADM suppressed the daily benchmark price of ethanol to benefit its short positions. AOT has alleged ADM's actions benefited the company by increasing the value of ADM's "short" or "hedged" ethanol positions. AOT filed a class-action lawsuit in May 2020, alleging ADM manipulated the daily ethanol market at the Argo terminal by flooding the fuel terminal with lower-priced ethanol starting in November 2017 through March 2019. The specific trading in question occurred during the 30-minute "market-on-close," or MOC, window. PREVIOUS CONCLUSIONS Wooldridge reportedly has previously concluded AOT did not suffer economic damage from ADM's alleged actions. The model Ledgerwood developed, according to court documents, includes: -- Futures price of corn -- Wages paid to manufacturing workers -- Electricity and natural gas prices -- Prices of byproducts of ethanol production -- Railroad transportation costs -- Storms or other severe weather in Illinois -- Gasoline price in New York Harbor -- Price of renewable identification numbers, or RINs -- Amount of ethanol and gasoline stocks in the U.S. -- U.S. imports and exports of ethanol and the Chinese tariffs placed on them. ADM has previously argued Ledgerwood and his report are not admissible because the model almost always finds ethanol-price suppression on ADM's part, and that he used the wrong model and data for pricing, among other issues. [GN] AUTODESK INC: Dismissal of Class Action Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------- Autodesk, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2026, that a class action suit filed against it was dismissed and is on appeal. Derviative action have been filed and consolidated. On April 24, 2024, Michael Barkasi filed a purported federal securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Autodesk, the company, its Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Anagnost, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Deborah L. Clifford. The complaint, which was filed shortly after the company's announcement of the Internal Investigation regarding the company's free cash flow and non-GAAP operating margin practices, generally alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action purported to be brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between February 23, 2023 and April 16, 2024, and sought unspecified damages and other relief. On July 10, 2024, the court appointed a lead plaintiff in the action, and an amended complaint was filed on September 16, 2024. On November 25, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and on July 18, 2025, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On August 8, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which purported to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed on August 29, 2025. On January 26, 2026, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice, and on February 12, 2026 it entered judgment. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on March 12, 2026 and filed an opening brief on appeal on May 27, 2026. Additionally, on June 7, 2024, a purported stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the Northern District of California, naming the company's directors at the time of the complaint and its Chief Strategy Officer as defendants and the company as a nominal defendant. The complaint generally alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets, based on similar underlying allegations contained in the purported federal securities class action complaint described above. A second purported stockholder derivative complaint naming the same defendants was filed in the Northern District of California on June 25, 2024. The complaint in that case generally alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and contribution, also based on similar underlying allegations contained in the purported federal securities class action described above. On October 29, 2024, the court consolidated and stayed the two stockholder derivative actions. A third purported stockholder derivative complaint naming the same defendants was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on Feb. 14, 2025. That complaint generally alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, misappropriation of information, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, also based on similar underlying allegations contained in the purported federal securities class action described above. The plaintiff in the District of Delaware action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice on April 4, 2025, which the Court entered on April 7, 2025. Autodesk, Inc. is a global software company that develops 3D design, engineering, and entertainment software, best known for products such as AutoCAD and Revit. The company serves professionals in architecture, engineering, construction, manufacturing, media, and entertainment markets worldwide. BADGER METER: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Badger Meter, Inc. ("Badger Meter" or the "Company") (NYSE:BMI) securities during the period of April 18, 2024 through April 16, 2026, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Badger Meter investments, you have until August 3, 2026 to request lead plaintiff appointment. Courts do not consider lead plaintiff applications submitted after this deadline. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. For more information about the lawsuit: https://www.kmllp.com/cases-investigations/badger-meter-inc What Is This Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that Badger Meter's financial results were at least partially attributable to the Company's practice of pulling forward customer orders to recognize revenue early, which concealed weakening demand and deteriorating near-term order trends. This practice also depleted revenue otherwise available for future periods, ultimately causing the disappointing financial results the Company later reported. However, the Company had previously told investors that Badger Meter's financial results reflected "ongoing favorable industry trends," "secular growth drivers," and "solid operating execution." They likewise touted "strong" demand and said they were seeing "robust order pacing and a strong bid pipeline that positions us well for continued sales and earnings growth," and that Badger Meter possessed a "long runway" for growth. On July 22, 2025, Badger Meter reported disappointing financial results for 2Q 2025, including earnings per share ("EPS") below consensus estimates, declining revenue growth, deteriorating margins, and warned "we expect absolute sales to decline sequentially in the third quarter of 2025." The Company said it was "simply the nature of the business" and blamed a gap caused by the completion of certain large advanced metering infrastructure ("AMI") projects and delays in the start of others while stating "our funnel remains as robust as ever" and that demand softness was "not a concern." On this news, the price of Badger Meter shares declined by $40.42 per share, or approximately 17%, from $245.22 per share on July 21, 2025 to close at $204.80 on July 22, 2025. On January 28, 2026, Badger Meter reported disappointing financial results for 4Q 2025, including missed revenue expectations and a "6% sequential decline in utility water sales." However, the Company continued to blame the poor results on "previously communicated project pacing effects." On this news, the price of Badger Meter shares declined by $18.09 per share, or approximately 11%, from $164.41 per share on January 27, 2026 to close at $146.32 on January 28, 2026. Finally, on April 17, 2026, Badger Meter reported disappointing 1Q 2026 financial results including that total sales were "9% lower than the prior year[]," "[u]tility water sales declined 10% year-over-year," "[o]perating earnings of $35.2 million, with an operating margin of 17.4%, compared to operating earnings of $49.4 million and an operating margin of 22.2% in the prior year," and "[d]iluted earnings per share (EPS) of $0.93, down from $1.30 in the first quarter of 2025." The Company blamed "project timing," but also disclosed that "softer shortcycle municipal customer ordering" contributed to the disappointing financial results. The Company also revealed that the "variability" in short-cycle demand seen in 1Q 2026 "has always existed, inclusive of [the] 2023 to 2025 time frame" but claimed it was "less visible in the revenue outcomes because of the backlog condition combined with projects in flight." On this news, the price of Badger Meter shares declined by $36.75 per share, or approximately 24%, from $152.29 per share on April 16, 2026 to close at $115.54 on April 17, 2026. The Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process. The federal securities laws permit any investor who acquired eligible securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Courts typically appoint the investor(s) with the largest financial loss in the case and the ability to represent the class rather than investors with simply the largest investment portfolio. Courts regularly appoint individual investors, whether acting alone or as a group, as lead plaintiffs. The rights of any investor who bought shares during the class period are generally already protected. However, lead plaintiffs have the power to influence case strategy and have a say in settlement decisions, as well as decisions concerning allocation of settlement funds among class members. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired Badger Meter securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Lauren Molinaro, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP (212) 699-1171 https://www.kmllp.com https://securitiesleadplaintiff.com/ investigations@kmllp.com [GN] BELKIN INTERNATIONAL: Yeh Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case HENRY YEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00847, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 12, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05666-RGK-MAR to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for fraud claims. Belkin International, Inc. is an American consumer electronics company headquartered in El Segundo, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Sena Guerra, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR AND FISHER PA 1990 North California Blvd, 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: dguerra@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com - and - Max Stuart Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7408 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: mroberts@bursor.com BENTLEY SEEDS: Ramirez Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BENTLEY SEEDS, INC.Case No. 1:26-cv-06440 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2026) arises because the Defendant's s website, www.deepindiankitchen.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both 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, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com BLACK GOLD: Cow Manure Products Contains PFAS, Acosta Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- SUZETTE ACOSTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLACK GOLD COMPOST COMPANY, LLC; and BLACK GOLD COMPOST HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03893-KES-EGC (E.D. Cal., May 20, 2026) alleges violation of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California's False Advertising Law, and the California's Unfair Competition Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Black Kow Cow Manure (the "Products"), which the Defendants deceptively markets as "organic" and "all natural" when the products contain synthetic, non-organic harmful perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) forever chemicals. The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell the Products throughout the United States, including the state of California. Black Gold Compost Company was founded in 1985. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of animal feeds, fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, and other farm supplies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Str Suite 640 # 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-Mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com brittany@skclassactions.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-4704 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-Mail: joel@skclassactions.com BLUE CROSS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brooks Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- KELLY ANN BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF KANSAS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02295 (D. Kan., May 19, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Brooks was employed by the Defendant as customer experience representatives. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life, health, and disability insurance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul D. Snyder, Esq. SNYDER LAW FIRM, LLC 10955 Lowell Ave., Suite 710 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 685-3900 Email: psnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com BROOME COUNTY, NY: Faces Class Suit Over Jail Salmonella Outbreak ----------------------------------------------------------------- Madeline L. Adams, writing for WBNG, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Broome County and Broome County Sheriff Fred Akshar after a massive Salmonella outbreak at the Broome County Jail. The lawsuit, filed by Binghamton attorney Ronald Benjamin, claims that more than 300 inmates sustained salmonella poisoning as a result of negligence by the county and the sheriff. Salih Shabazz, an inmate at the jail, is listed as a representative of all inmates who contracted salmonella poisoning sometime between May 15 and May 25. It is implied that the county and sheriff failed to protect the health, welfare and safety of inmates, per New York Corrections Laws and state regulations. Pending further proceedings, the claim states that the records of food purchasing for the month of May will be reviewed. [GN] CALIX INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 27 ---------------------------------------------------------- Holzer & Holzer, LLC reminds investors of the deadline to seek to be appointed lead plaintiff in the following class action lawsuits: Calix, Inc. (CALX) The shareholder class action lawsuit filed against Calix, Inc. ("Calix") (NYSE: CALX) alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts between January 28, 2026 and April 21, 2026 regarding Calix's advanced purchasing of memory components. If you purchased Calix shares during this time period and suffered a loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/calix/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is July 27, 2026. AeroVironment, Inc. (AVAV) The shareholder class action lawsuit filed against AeroVironment, Inc. ("AeroVironment") (NASDAQ: AVAV) alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts June 25, 2025 and March 10, 2026 regarding the competitive landscape AeroVironment faced. If you purchased AeroVironment shares during this time period and suffered a loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/aerovironment/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is July 27, 2026. Lucid Group, Inc. (LCID) The shareholder class action lawsuit filed against Lucid Group, Inc. ("Lucid") (NASDAQ: LCID) alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts between February 25, 2026 and April 13, 2026 regarding Lucid's manufacturing and delivery capabilities and overall operations. If you purchased Lucid shares during this time period and suffered a loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/lucid/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is July 28, 2026. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, https://holzerlaw.com/, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] CALIX INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 27 ---------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Calix, Inc. (NYSE: CALX) between January 28, 2026 and April 21, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 27, 2026. SO WHAT: If you purchased Calix securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Calix class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/calix-inc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 27, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Calix's first quarter margins had significantly benefited from advanced purchasing of memory components; (2) Calix's advanced supply of memory components was dwindling; (3) as a result, Calix was experiencing negative margin pressure as it was forced to purchase memory components at rising market prices; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Calix's margins, business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Calix class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/calix-inc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] CARGILL INC: Sweetener Made from Erythritol, Graglia Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ LUKE GRAGLIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARGILL, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03274 (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2026) alleges that the Defendant represents to consumers through its packaging that the Products are primarily made from monk fruit and that the Products contain "NO ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS." According to the complaint, the Defendant's claims are false on both fronts because the Products are mostly made from erythritol, an artificial sweetener. The Plaintiff has purchased the Products. Now, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, he asserts claims for violations of New York General Business Law, and for breach of express warranty. The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells Truvia Sweet Complete Granulated All-Purpose Monk Fruit Sweetener throughout the United States, including in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com CASELY INC: Ayala Sues Over Defective Wireless Power Banks ---------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASELY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03096-TAM (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2026) is an action alleging that the Defendant manufactures, distributes, and sells defective Casely Power Pods 5000mAh portable MagSafe wireless power banks, Model E33A (the "Casely Power Bank" or the "Affected Product"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant advertises its Power Pod products as convenient, portable wireless charging solutions designed for everyday consumer use. The Defendant promotes its power pods as enabling consumers to keep their devices charged on the go, emphasizing ease of use, portability, and reliability. Despite these representations, the Affected Product contained a defect in its lithium-ion battery that could cause it to overheat, expand, or catch fire, posing serious safety risks to consumers, says the suit. Casely, Inc. specializes in stylish phone cases and accessories, offering a wide range of designs including marble, floral, and clear cases. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. Michael N. Pollack, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com mpollack@zlk.com CHAMPIONX CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 14 --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against ChampionX Corporation ("ChampionX" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:CHX). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether ChampionX and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until July 14, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired ChampionX securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. A Complaint has filed on behalf of investors who sold ChampionX common stock during the Class Period, alleging that the defendants failed to disclose material information, which artificially deflated the price of ChampionX common stock. Per the allegations of the Complaint, on February 29, 2024, ChampionX received an unsolicited non-public offer from Schlumberger Limited to purchase all the outstanding shares of ChampionX for $36.70 per share. On March 7, 2024, Schlumberger raised its offer to $37.80 per share. The ChampionX class action lawsuit alleges that while these offers were on the table and unknown to the investing public, ChampionX was repurchasing its common stock at market prices significantly below the prices offered by Schlumberger. ChampionX had an obligation to disclose that it had received a formal acquisition offer from Schlumberger or abstain from purchasing ChampionX stock from unsuspecting investors. During the Class Period, ChampionX's average stock price was $33.32 per share. On Tuesday, April 2, 2024, during pre-market hours, ChampionX disclosed the merger with Schlumberger. The merger eventually closed on July 16, 2025, with Schlumberger acquiring ChampionX for $40.58 per share. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] CHARLTON ARIA: Faces Consolidated Derivative Actions ---------------------------------------------------- Charlton Aria Acquisition Corp. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated Tuesday, May 27, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday, May 28, 2026, that Nova LifeStyle, Inc. is currently facing a consolidated derivate action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On March 8, 2019, Jie Yuan filed a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of Nova LifeStyle, Inc. in the Central District of California. The action was brought against Nova LifeStyle's former and current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang, and Yuen Ching Ho), directors (Charlie Huy La, Bin Liu, Umesh Patel, and Min Su), and vice president (Steven Qiang Liu), seeking to recover any losses Nova LifeStyle sustains as a result of alleged securities violations. The plaintiff also alleges that President and CEO Lam engaged in self-dealing transactions by leasing her property to Diamond Bar, a Nova LifeStyle subsidiary, and asserts that Lam, former CEO and director Ya Ming Wong, former CFO and director Yuen Ching Ho, and director Umesh Patel sold securities during that period of time. Separately, on May 15, 2019, Wilton Samuels filed a putative derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of Nova LifeStyle against the same current and former directors and officers named in the Jie Action, other than Steven Qiang Liu, in the same court. Samuels repeats the allegations of the complaint in the Jie action, and additionally claimed that, in announcing its change of auditing firms in September 2016, Nova LifeStyle asserted that this change was made because its existing auditor ceased auditing public companies subject to regulation in the United States without disclosing that its new auditing firm was created in a merger of three accounting firms, including a firm whose registration was revoked by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Samuels also claims that Nova LifeStyle redeemed its stock in reliance upon the same purported fraudulent recognition of revenues claimed in the putative class action. He purports to state direct claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on these alleged misstatements and omissions. As a follow-up, the company further reported that, upon the request of the defendants, the court in both the Jie and the Samuels action agreed, in April 2020 and June 2020 respectively, to stay those shareholder derivative proceedings until the Barney Action was resolved. The Barney Action was subsequently settled, and the final settlement was approved by the court in April 2024. In January 2025, following that settlement, and upon stipulation by the respective plaintiffs and defendants in the Jie Action and the Samuels Action, the court issued an order consolidating the two derivative actions into a single case, lifting the stay, and setting a new briefing schedule for the parties to move forward with the consolidated litigation. Charlton Aria Acquisition Corp is a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) formed to effect a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses. The company has no operating business of its own and is focused on identifying and consummating an initial business combination related services. CLINICAL REGISTRY: Dowdell Sues Over Inadequate Data Security ------------------------------------------------------------- ALBERT DOWDELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLINICAL REGISTRY SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02948 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2026) arises out of Defendant Clinical Registry Solutions' failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. On or about May 6, 2026, the threat actor "Akira" successfully breached Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and accessed and exfiltrated approximately 41 gigabytes of highly sensitive data, including patient registry data, employee personal information, and other corporate records. The incident was publicly reported by DeXpose and other cybersecurity intelligence sources. However, Defendant has not yet provided adequate notice to all affected individuals. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit 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 Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access. The Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. Clinical Registry Solutions is a healthcare data management and clinical registry abstraction company headquartered in Brooklyn, NY. The company provides services for hospitals across the United States and Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com CMC VS: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CARLOS BRITO v. CMC VS, LLC, and NUTRILACTEOS Y MAS LLC D/B/A NUTRILACTEOS Y MAS, LLC D/B/A NUTRILACTEOS Y MAS, Case No. 1:26-cv-23842 (S.D. Fla., June 1, 2026) is class action suit for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The supermarket at this address falls within the commercial property/strip mall that is the subject of the ADA Action. In spite of the abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, the Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the business therein, the suit contends. The Plaintiff is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris. The Defendant owned and managed a commercial property at 503 SW 12th Avenue, Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com COLLIGERE FARM: Arellano Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FIDEL ARELLANO, ANABEL NATAREN, and LUCIO ALVAREZ, on behalf of themselves, the State of California, all similarly situated aggrieved employees, and all others similarly situated, v. COLLIGERE FARM MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a California Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01793-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on July 9, 2026 at 10:00 am, will move the Court for an Order granting class certification of the following classes against the Defendant: Global Class: "All non-exempt agricultural employees employed by farm labor contractor Central Valley Farming who provided labor to Defendant Colligere at any time from June 26, 2020 to the present." Unpaid Overtime Subclass (Labor Code section 860): "All non-exempt agricultural employees employed by farm labor contractor Central Valley Farming who provided labor to Defendant Colligere at any time from June 26, 2021 to the present and worked not paid earned overtime when they worked more than 5 days in a single workweek." Underpaid Piece-Rate Rest Period Subclass (Labor Code section 226.2): "All non-exempt agricultural employees employed by farm labor contractor Central Valley Farming who provided labor to Defendant Colligere at any time from June 26, 2020 to the present who worked at least one piece-rate shift of 3 1/2 hours or greater and was undercompensated for rest periods." Short, Incomplete, or Missed Meal Period Subclass (Labor Code sections 226.7, 512): "All non-exempt agricultural employees employed by farm labor contractor Central Valley Farming who provided labor to Defendant Colligere at any time from June 26, 2020 to the present who worked at least one shift of 5 hours or greater." Minimum Wage Subclass (Labor Code sections 226.2, 1197.1, 1194.2): "All non-exempt agricultural employees employed by farm labor contractor Central Valley Farming who provided labor to Defendant Colligere at any time from June 26, 2020 to the present who were not compensated separately for nonproductive time, apart from rest periods, and therefore were not paid minimum for this unproductive time." Final Wages Subclass: "All non-exempt agricultural employees employed by farm labor contractor Central Valley Farming who provided labor to Defendant Colligere at any time from June 26, 2021 up to the present, who were not paid all wages due when they were laid off, discharged or quit as required by the California Labor Code." Violation of Unfair Competition Law Subclass: "All non-exempt agricultural employees employed by farm labor contractor Central Valley Farming who provided labor to Defendant Colligere at any time from June 26, 2020 to the present who, due to the violations alleged in the subclasses, or because of unlawful deductions from their wages in violation of Labor Code section 221, were subject to unlawful or unfair business acts or practices." Colligere is a farm management company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R8IY1G at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Cody A. Bolce, Esq. Cristina Mathews, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: stanm@themmlawfirm.com hectorm@themmlawfirm.com cbolce@themmlawfirm.com cmathews@themmlawfirm.com COVIDIEN LP: Judge Approves Bid for Surgical Mesh Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- BBC reports that a judge has given the go-ahead for more than 80 people to pursue a US-style class action compensation claim against the manufacturers of a surgical mesh. Following an earlier hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Lady Haldane gave permission for the group proceedings against Covidien LP. Those involved all had treatment for hernias using mesh products made by the firm. Lawyers for Covidien previously opposed permission for the group proceedings to be be brought. The firm's advocate Astrid Smart KC told the court that the claims were too diverse to be dealt with as a group action. She said there were differences in the type of the mesh products used, in the type of hernias and the specific medical circumstances of each of the cases. However, in the judgement published on Friday, May 29, Lady Haldane rejected her arguments. The judge said the legal test, which needed to be applied at this stage of the process, was not to study each individual claim but to assess whether the cases raised issues that were the same, similar or related. She added: "On the question of commonality, the statutory test is whether the proposed proceedings raise issues that are the same as, or similar, or related to each other. "The issues are not identical, that much is true. The group members had a variety of mesh products implanted to treat various types of hernia. "The common factor is that all were manufactured by the respondent." Lady Haldane said the case, which has been brought by 84 patients, would examine whether the company was negligent. The judgement does not determine whether Covidien was negligent or whether any of its products were defective. The judgement also does not establish whether any member of the group is entitled to damages. Those issues will be decided at a later stage. [GN] CRAFTMIX INC: Cardenas Sues Over Mislabeled Drink Mix Products -------------------------------------------------------------- TIARA CARDENAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRAFTMIX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-at-00834 (E.D. Cal., May 18, 2026) alleges that the Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises and sells mislabeled drink mix products. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, through the representations on the front of the label of the Products that the Products are "All Natural", and the reiteration of this representation in the marketing material and Products' online listing (these combined representations shall be known as the "Misrepresentations"), Defendant conveys that the Products are all natural and free from artificial ingredients. But contrary to the Misrepresentations, the Products contain a number of artificial ingredients, including citric acid, alleges the suit. Craftmix, Inc. is a Los Angeles-based startup founded in 2019 that produces convenient, single-serving powdered cocktail and mocktail mixers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaniel H. Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 165 Broadway, Fl. 23 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-Mail: adrian@gucovschilaw.com nathaniel@gucovschilaw.com CRAFTMIX INC: Cardenas Sues Over Mislabeled Drink Mix Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Tiara Cardenas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Craftmix, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01867-CKD (E.D. Cal., May 18, 2026) arises from Defendant's mislabeling and false marketing of its drink mix products. Through the representations on the front of the label of said products are "All Natural", and the reiteration of this representation in the marketing material and products’ online listing, the Defendant conveys that these products are all natural and free from artificial ingredients. But contrary to the misrepresentations, the products contain a number of artificial ingredients, including citric acid. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings nine causes of action: unfair competition, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, false of advertising, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation/fraud, breach of consumer protection statues, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Marina Del Rey, California, Craftmix, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells drink mix products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 165 Broadway, Fl. 23 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gucovschilaw.com nathaniel@gucovschilaw.com DERICK DERMATOLOGY: Agrees to $1MM Tracking Pixel Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who scheduled an appointment on www.derickdermatology.com or any of its subdomains between Nov. 21, 2023, and Nov. 27, 2025, may be eligible to submit a claim for up to $12.50 and a free one-year Privacy Shield Pro subscription from a class action settlement. Derick Dermatology PLLC agreed to pay up to $1 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it improperly disclosed website visitor information to third parties through pixels, cookies, code, and tracking or analytics tools without user permission. Who can file a claim for a tracking pixel payout? Class members are individuals who made an appointment on www.derickdermatology.com or any of its subdomains at anytime between Nov. 21, 2023, and Nov. 27, 2025. How much are settlement payments? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Cash payment: Class members can submit a claim to receive a cash payment of up to $12.50. -- Identity theft protection: All class members will automatically receive one year of Privacy Shield Pro identity theft protection services. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Derick Dermatology Pixel Settlement, c/o Simpluris, P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799 The claim deadline is July 21, 2026. Class members do not need to submit a claim to receive identity theft protection services. Required claim information To submit a claim online, class members must provide the login ID and PIN from the settlement notice they received. Payout options -- Venmo -- PayPal -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The $1,000,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $350,000 -- Service award to class representative: Up to $1,500 -- Identity theft protection: Cost determined by number of class members who enroll in services -- Payments to claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: June 22, 2026 -- Claim deadline: July 21, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Aug. 17, 2026 When is the Derick Dermatology pixel settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants approximately 90 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. It will activate identity theft protection enrollment codes within 35 days after the final approval date. Class members must enroll within 125 days of the final approval date. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Derick Dermatology PLLC improperly disclosed website visitor information to third parties through pixels, cookies, code, and tracking or analytics tools without user permission. The plaintiff claimed violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, breach of fiduciary duty/confidentiality, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence. Derick Dermatology denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of further litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $12.50 plus one-year Privacy Shield Pro subscription Deadline: July 21, 2026 [GN] DERICK DERMATOLOGY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Derick Dermatology has agreed to an up to $1,000,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the dermatology clinic embedded tracking pixels and analytics tools in its website that surreptitiously shared site visitors' personal health information with third parties. The $1 million Derick Dermatology class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 22, 2026. The deal covers all individuals who, from November 21, 2023 through November 27, 2025, made an appointment on DerickDermatology.com or any of its subdomains. The court-approved website for the Derick Dermatology tracking pixel settlement can be found at DermatologyPixelSettlement.com. Derick Dermatology settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive a cash payment of up to $12.50 with no proof required. To submit a Derick Dermatology settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Derick Dermatology claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by July 21, 2026. Additionally, all class members are automatically eligible to receive one year of CyEx Privacy Shield Pro, which includes identity theft protection. To enroll in this service, class members must wait until the settlement becomes final and then head to this page and enter the activation code found on their copy of the settlement notice. The court will determine whether to grant the Derick Dermatology settlement final approval following a hearing on August 17, 2026. Cash payments will begin to be distributed only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Derick Dermatology class action lawsuit alleged that the Illinois-based dermatology clinic disclosed private patient information to third parties by way of tracking and analytics tools embedded in its website -- including pixels, cookies and code -- without their express permission, in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act. [GN] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Extends Time to Complete Class Cert Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLIVIA PARROTT, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:21-cv-02930-RCL (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for extension of time to complete liability and class certification discovery. The Parties have conferred and seek an additional 45 days (until July 14) to complete the depositions and additional document productions. The Plaintiffs do not oppose the District's request for an additional 30 days to respond to the Plaintiffs' RFAs. The Plaintiff likewise do not oppose the District's request for an additional two weeks—until June 12, 2026, to provide its amended responses to interrogatories No. 1 and 2 from the Plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories. Finally, the Parties request a deadline of July 24, 2026 for the filing of a joint status report apprising the Court of any outstanding disputes and/or proposing next steps in the litigation. The Court's March 31 Order resolved the Parties' then pending discovery motions and extended the close of discovery to May 30, 2026. Since then, the Parties have been working to complete discovery according to the Court's instructions. The Parties continue to meet and confer regarding discovery disputes as they arise, and while they anticipate requiring the Court's guidance on some issues, they will continue efforts to reach resolution and narrow their disputes without the Court's intervention. The Defendant is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dYZkHU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adrian F. Snead, Esq. Sean M. Aasen, Esq. PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP 2020 K St NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 778-3038 E-mail: saasen@porterwright.com asnead@porterwright.com - and - William Claiborne, Esq. CLAIBORNE LAW 717 D St., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 824-0700 E-mail: claibornelaw@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian L. Schwalb, Esq. Stephanie E. Litos, Esq. Matthew R. Blecher, Esq. Honey Morton, Esq. Richard P. Sobiecki, Esq. Brendan Heath, Esq. Helen M. Rave, Esq. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 400 6th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 735-7520 E-mail: helen.rave@dc.gov DRIVESTREAM INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Anderson Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE M. ANDERSON and GREG LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DRIVESTREAM, INC.; and ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND D/B/A THE TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA A/K/A TULANE UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01075 (E.D. La., May 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs and the Class highly sensitive data. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that the failure to exercise due care in the collecting, obtaining, accepting, managing, storing, maintaining, and processing of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information involved an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiffs and Class Members, including if the harm occurred through the acts of a third party. By collecting, obtaining, accepting, managing, storing, maintaining, and processing Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII, the Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in safeguarding, securing, and protecting such information from being compromised, lost, stolen, misused, and/or disclosed to unauthorized parties, says the suit. Drivestream Inc provides information technology services. The Company offers cloud transformation services which includes strategy, implementation, change management, and ongoing production support. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casey C. DeReus, Esq. Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212) 486-0462 Email: dereus@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com - and - Garret S. DeReus, Esq. BEY & ASSOCIATES, LLC 650 Poydras St., Suite 2610 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 229-5740 Email: gdereus@beyandassociates.com EDDIE BAUER: Court Stays Parra Class Action Due to Bankruptcy ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Serena R. Murillo of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California stayed the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON PARRA, Plaintiff, v. EDDIE BAUER LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09998-SRM-SK (C.D. Cal.) under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a)(1). Plaintiff Brandon Parra's motion to remand is denied subject to refiling within 30 days after the stay has been lifted. On February 13, 2026, Defendant Eddie Bauer LLC filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy. Defendant states that it and certain affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. Under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a)(1), once a petition for relief is filed, judicial proceedings against the debtor that were commenced before the bankruptcy proceeding are automatically stayed. The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close the case. Class Action Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in California from November of 2024 to January of 2025. Plaintiff was at all times classified by Defendant as a non-exempt employee, paid on an hourly basis, and entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked. Plaintiff brings this Class Action on behalf of himself and a California class, defined as all individuals who are or previously were employed by Defendant in California, including any employees staffed with Defendant by a third party, and classified as nonexempt employees -- California Class -- at any time during the period beginning four years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date as determined by the Court -- California Class Period. The amount in controversy for the aggregate claim of California Class Members is $5,000,000. Plaintiff brings this Class Action on behalf of himself and a California Class in order to fully compensate the California Class for their losses incurred during the California Class Period caused by Defendant's policy and practice which failed to lawfully compensate these employees. A copy of the Complaint is available at http://urlcurt.com/u?l=t6VUW2from PacerMonitor.com. A copy of the Court's Order dated May 29, 2026, is available at http://urlcurt.com/u?l=tC5xHIfrom PacerMonitor.com. Eddie Bauer is an outdoor apparel brand was founded in Seattle in 1920 and has built a reputation around clothing and gear for hiking, travel, and outdoor recreation. It sells outdoor apparel, footwear, and equipment designed for travel and adventure. The company currently reports operating over 250 locations throughout North America. Eddie Bauer LLC sought relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D.N.J. Case No. 26-11422) on February 9, 2026. In its petition, the Debtor reports $100,000,001 to $500 million in assets and $1,000,000,001 to $10 billion in liabilities. The Hon. Bankruptcy Judge Stacey L. Meisel handles the case. The Debtor is represented by Michael D. Sirota, Esq. of Cole Schotz P.C. Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Kirkland & Ellis International LLP as counsel. GBH SOLIC Holdco, LLC d/b/a SOLIC Capital Advisors as investment banker. Stretto, Inc. as administrative advisor. The official committee of unsecured creditors hired Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP as its counsel; Brinkman Law Group, PC as its administrative/efficiency counsel; and Province, LLC as financial advisor. In April 2026, the Hon. Stacey L. Meisel approved the Disclosure Statement and confirmed the Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of Eddie Bauer LLC and its debtor affiliates. EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES : ClassAction.org Probes Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the EECU 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 EECU data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. EECU Security Incident: What Happened? Educational Employees Credit Union (EECU), serving over 402,000 members across 12 California counties, has reported a data breach involving unauthorized access to an employee's email account. A sample notification letter states that on December 15, 2025, the intrusion was identified. An investigation revealed that emails may have been accessed or extracted by an unauthorized party on the same day as detection. A review of the impacted email account determined on May 8, 2026 that certain emails accessed in the Educational Employees Credit Union data breach contained personal information. According to a report submitted to the Texas Attorney General's Office, names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and financial information may have been compromised in the EECU data breach. What You Can Do After the EECU Data Breach If your information was exposed in the EECU 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 EECU to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] EL SHOPPING: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Brito Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EL SHOPPING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-23604-RKA (S.D. Fla., May 21, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial plaza property at 1220 SW 3rd Street, Miami, Florida 33135, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. El Shopping LLC owns, operates and oversees a commercial plaza property. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-Mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Sued Over Defective Frigidaire Gas Ranges -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Electrolux Consumer Products faces a proposed class action lawsuit in the wake of a March 2026 recall of certain Frigidaire gas ranges plagued by a defect that can cause delayed ignition of the oven's bake burner, posing a significant burn risk. The 18-page complaint contends that Electrolux falsely marketed the Frigidaire gas ranges as safe for normal use. The class action lawsuit contends that consumers who have bought the Frigidaire gas ranges, sold between June 2025 and January 2026 by Lowe's and Home Depot, among other retailers, and directly from Frigidaire, are now saddled with a "worthless and dangerous product." According to the complaint, Electrolux received at least 62 reports of delayed ignition involving the oven's bake burner, including 30 reports of consumer injuries. The case alleges that Electrolux fraudulently failed to disclose to consumers the Frigidaire gas ranges' burn risk. "[Electrolux] had superior knowledge about the defective nature of the product at issue, particularly the risk of a burn hazard presented by the delayed ignition, which made them unfit for ordinary use," the filing asserts. Per the complaint, the recall applies to all Frigidaire, Frigidaire Gallery, and Frigidaire Professional gas ranges bearing the following model numbers: FCFG3083AS, FCRG3083AD, FCRG3083AS, GCFG3060BD, GCFG3060BF, GCFG3070BF, GCRG3060BD, GCRG3060BF, PCFG3080AF, FCFG3062AB, FCFG3062AS, FCFG3062AW, FCRG3051BB, FCRG3051BS, FCRG3051BW, FCRG3052BB, FCRG3052BS, FCRG3052BW, FCRG3062AB, FCRG3062AS, FCRG3062AW, FCRG306LAF and GCFG3059BF, within the serial number range VF52200000 through VF54399999. The March 2026 Consumer Product Safety Commission recall covers approximately 174,800 units across the United States, the suit reads. As part of the recall, the CPSC instructed consumers to stop using an affected Frigidaire range immediately and contact Electrolux for a free repair, though the product's cooktop burners could continue to be used safely, the watchdog agency said. However, the lawsuit argues that consumers were misled by Electrolux's marketing as the company failed to disclose the delayed ignition problem and burn injuries before selling the products, and that their ovens would have diminished usability as a result of the flaw. According to the complaint, Electrolux could have used alternative designs or materials already available to competing manufacturers that would have mitigated the burn risk. The lawsuit argues that the burner defect in the Frigidaire ranges was "demonstrably avoidable" had the company implemented safer design modifications before selling the ranges. The Frigidaire gas range class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in the United States who purchased a Frigidaire-branded oven and gas range that was recalled in March 2026 within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] ENTRATA INC: Faces Fish Class Action Suit Over Junk Fees -------------------------------------------------------- URIAH FISH and KELLEY ROWAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENTRATA, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-02416 (D. Colo., June 1, 2026) case arises because Entrata lies about the fees that it charges to tenants, charges them for services they do not receive, and sells a credit repair product without providing consumers with information required by the Credit Repair Organizations Act, the Colorado Credit Services Organization Act, and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is a company that offers a product called RentPlus. When tenants sign a lease with their property management company (PMC) or landlord, many of those leases include a RentPlus Lease Addendum drafted by Defendant -- claiming that "the RentPlus service is a credit reporting and financial tool" that reports "rent and/or utility payments" to the major credit bureaus: Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian. The Defendant further touts its product as "an amenity provided by the property" to tenants, who are charged $8.95 per month for RentPlus to purportedly improve their credit scores. In reality, however, these are untrue and deceptive statements regarding the services provided by RentPlus for several reasons. One, while Defendant positions its product as a benefit to tenants, PMCs receive a significant kickback each month for luring unsuspecting tenants into enrolling in RentPlus, says the suit. The Defendant's addenda create the appearance that Defendant's product is truly a third-party service and amenity that provides benefits to tenants -- rather than an inflated fee used to compound the rent burden on low and middle-income Americans. Moreover, many landlords already report all payment activity -- both positive and negative -- to major credit reporting companies, which provide reports to landlords for use in making rental decisions, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Fish was initially enrolled in RentPlus from December 2020 to November 2024, and again through a negative option provision in his residential lease from December 2024 to the present. Plaintiff Rowan was enrolled in RentPlus through a negative option provision in her residential lease from January 2026 to April 2026. Entrata owns and operates RentPlus by RentDynamics, a rent-reporting service marketed as improving consumers' credit scores and credit histories.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Dempsey, Esq. Toree Lindblad, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 1580 N Logan Street Ste 660 PMB 44465 Denver, CO, 80203-1994 Telephone: (720) 441-2236 E-mail: rachel@towardsjustice.org toree@towardsjustice.org seth@towardsjustice.org - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Baker Says ------------------------------------------------------------ DEBORAH BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVERSOURCE ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY, Case No. 1:26-cv-12464-LTS (D. Mass., June 1, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information from criminal hackers, resulting in a data breach. On or around May 21, 2026, the Defendant reported to the Maine Attorney General's Office that it experienced a data breach impacting approximately 3,049 individuals. According to the Defendant, in April of 2026, Defendant experienced a cybercriminal phishing campaign that resulted in unauthorized use of the credentials of two employees to access a limited number of files, some of which contained customer information (the Data Breach). The Defendant claims it blocked activities by this hacker group and implemented additional security measures in response to the Breach to further strengthen its cybersecurity systems. After an investigation, the Defendant determined that some current and former customer data was contained in the files that were accessed during the Data Breach. The types of PII exposed in the Data Breach varied by individual, but the types of PII involved included names, mailing and utility service addresses and account information, phone numbers, emails, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, federal identification numbers, financial account numbers, and account information (Private Information). The Defendant collected and maintained this Private Information during the course of providing utility services to former and current customers or customer household members, says the suit. The Defendant is a utility company serving Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. Tyler Bean, Esq SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue Suite 1300, No. 16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com EXPEDITED TRAVEL: Faces Class Suit Over RushMyPassport Services --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Tyler Alfonzetti filed a class action lawsuit against Expedited Travel LLC. Why: Alfonzetti claims Expedited Travel falsely marketed RushMyPassport services as an "expedited" passport service. Where: The RushMyPassport class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Expedited Travel of falsely advertising RushMyPassport services as a faster way for consumers to obtain passports. The class action lawsuit claims the company marketed the services through RushMyPassport.com, FedEx, AARP and AAA while promising consumers they could help them get their passports fast and save them time. Plaintiff Tyler Alfonzetti claims he purchased expedited passport services through FedEx at fedex.rushmypassport.com after reviewing the company's advertising and believing he would receive his passport faster than if he applied directly through the Department of State. According to the class action lawsuit, Expedited Travel offers several tiers of passport services, ranging from "1 Business Day" to "6 Weeks" and charges consumers between $119 and $740 in addition to government passport fees. However, the complaint alleges consumers can already obtain expedited passport processing directly through the Department of State for an additional $60 fee on top of the standard passport application cost. "The Department of State warns that individuals using a company like Defendant's 'will not receive' their 'passport faster than applying' directly through the Department of State," the class action lawsuit says. The complaint claims consumers paid a price premium for services that were allegedly "no faster than applying through the Department of State and will not result in a consumer receiving their passport any sooner than applying directly." RushMyPassport class action lawsuit: Consumers paid premium prices The complaint claims Expedited Travel marketed the services as "best for travelers on tight timelines" and as "the most convenient way to get an expedited passport in a hurry." The lawsuit alleges these statements created the impression consumers would receive faster processing through RushMyPassport than directly through the government. The RushMyPassport class action further alleges consumers relied on these marketing statements when deciding whether to purchase the services. Alfonzetti claims he and other consumers would not have purchased the services, or would not have paid as much for them, had they known the services allegedly did not provide faster passport processing. Alfonzetti seeks to represent a class of people who purchased the services in New York within the applicable statute of limitations period. The complaint alleges Expedited Travel violated New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350. Alfonzetti is seeking certification of the proposed class, damages, attorney fees, costs and other relief. The complaint also requests a jury trial. In 2021, FedEx was hit with a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to deliver packages within the promised time frame despite charging customers premium rates for expedited shipping. The plaintiff is represented by Innessa M. Huot of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP and Brittany S. Scott of Smith Krivoshey P.C. The RushMyPassport class action lawsuit is Alfonzetti v. Expedited Travel LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03216, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] EYEBUYDIRECT INC: Faces Darr Suit Over TCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ CAITLIN DARR, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EYEBUYDIRECT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01250 (C.D. Cal., May 19, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Between April 20, 2026, and April 24, 2026, the Defendant made telephone solicitations to Plaintiff's cellular telephone. In addition, the Defendant sent Plaintiff more than one telephone solicitations that failed to disclose the name of the telemarketer, says the suit. Eyebuydirect, Inc. offers prescription glasses and sunglasses for sale online. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com FANATICS LLC: Agrees to Settles Handling Fees Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Fanatics has agreed to a settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the sports merchandise retailer falsely advertised that certain orders had free or low-cost shipping when, in fact, they came with a handling fee. The Fanatics class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 30, 2026. The deal covers all individuals in the United States who, from May 6, 2018 to March 30, 2026, placed an order through the Fanatics websites and were assessed and paid a handling fee. The court-approved website for the Fanatics handling fee settlement can be found at HandlingFeeSettlement.com. A list of websites that sell Fanatics merchandise and are covered by the settlement can be found on this page. Fanatics settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive two $5 vouchers for use on Fanatics.com. Fanatics settlement vouchers can be combined with other offers, such as promotions or discounts that do not require a code, and will expire 12 months after issuance. To file a Fanatics settlement claim form online, class members can head to https://handlingfeesettlement.com/claim-form/ and enter the claim ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice, along with their personal information. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Fanatics settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by August 27, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Fanatics handling fee settlement following a hearing on September 16, 2026. Vouchers will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Fanatics class action lawsuit claimed that the sports merchandise retailer falsely advertised the true shipping cost for orders promoted as having free or low-cost shipping by assessing a handling fee. [GN] FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Removes Aldrich Suit to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of DYLAN ALDRICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 26STCV09464) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 20, 2026. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05444 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Christina A Snyder and referred to Magistrate Brianna Fuller Mircheff. Ferguson Enterprises Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides expertise, solutions, and products. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Chris A. Jalian, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Telephone: (213) 683-6000 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705 Email: chrisjalian@paulhastings.com - and - Eric Distelburger, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 Email: ericdistelburger@paulhastings.com FLOW CRYPTOCURRENCY: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of investors in FLOW (FLOW-USD) cryptocurrency, resulting from allegations that Flow Foundation may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased FLOW cryptocurrency you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=56767 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: If you purchased FLOW cryptocurrency on or before December 27, 2025 and held your Flow cryptocurrency through December 29, 2025, please reach out to the firm. There are no out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] FMC SERVICES: Agrees to Settle 2022 Data Breach Suit for $2.15MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that FMC Services, LLC, doing business as Family Medicine Centers, has agreed to a $2,150,000 class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit that alleged the family primary care provider failed to safeguard sensitive information in its care from a July 2022 data breach. The $2.15 million Family Medicine Centers class action settlement received preliminary court approval on April 10, 2026. The agreement covers all individuals whose personally identifiable information or personal health information was compromised in the Family Medicine Centers data breach, including all who were sent notice of the breach. Court documents state that 266,540 people received notice of the data breach from Family Medicine Centers. The court-approved website for the Family Medicine Centers settlement can be found at FMCDataSettlement.com. Family Medicine Centers settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses stemming from the data breach. Class members must submit proof, such as email correspondence or receipts, to receive this benefit. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members may instead submit a claim form to receive a pro rata alternative cash payment of approximately $75, with no proof required. The final amount of each class member's cash payout may increase or decrease, depending on the total number of claims filed. In addition to monetary benefits, all class members can file a claim form for two years of CyEx medical data monitoring, which includes identity theft insurance, real-time one-bureau credit monitoring, access to fraud resolution agents, and more. Class members who are minors can instead file a claim for two years of CyEx's minor monitoring product, which includes real-time Social Security number monitoring, public records traces, and more. To submit an FMC claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the settlement claim ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Family Medicine Centers settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by August 31, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the FMC settlement final approval following a hearing on September 15, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Family Medicine Centers class action lawsuit claimed that the Amarillo, Texas-based primary care provider failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive information in its systems from a data breach on or around July 26, 2022. Per court documents, private information that may have been compromised in the breach included names, mailing addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and medical information. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Raser Sues Over Improper Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------- KEITH RASER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. Case No. 2:26-cv-11702-JEL-CI ECF (E.D. Mich., May 22, 2026) alleges violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the lawsuit arises from the Defendant's retention of windfall profits generated as a consequence of the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This windfall is a direct result of the Defendant systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to its own customers—including Plaintiff—through elevated product prices, says the suit. Ford Motor Company Limited manufactures and sells automobiles. The Company offers cars, trucks, SUVs, vans, vehicles parts, and accessories, as well as provides financial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil J. Marchand, Esq. Brandon S. Corcoran, Esq. MILLER JOHNSON 45 Ottawa Ave. SW, Suite 1100 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 831-1764 Email: marchandn@millerjohnson.com - and - Myles McGuire, Esq. Evan M. Meyers, Esq. Joseph Dunklin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com emeyers@mcgpc.com jdunklin@mcgpc.com FURNISHED FINDER: Clough Sues Over Unwanted Calls and Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT CLOUGH II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FURNISHED FINDER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00397-AJ (D.N.H., May 19, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff's residential telephone number was on the National Do Not Call Registry, and had been for more than 30 days, when it was called by the Defendant. The Plaintiff received multiple telemarketing calls and text messages from Defendant in February and March, 2026. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, and injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant from making further unlawful telephonic solicitations to Plaintiff and National Do-Not-Call Class Members. Headquartered in Austin, Travis County, Texas, Furnished Finder, LLC offers property rentals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Weintraub, Esq. WEINTRAUB LAW, LLC 170 Commerce Way, Suite 200 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone: (603) 212-1785 E-mail: aweintraub@ahwfirm.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com FUTURHEALTH INC: Boyle Sues Over Deceptive Weight Loss Program -------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY BOYLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUTURHEALTH, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03138-AJB-BJW (S.D. Cal., May 19, 2026) alleges violation of the California's False Advertising Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants deceives consumers throughout the US who are browsing online via its website, https://fh.co as well as consumers who receive its marketing advertisements via targeted marketing advertisements on various online platforms. Such advertisements contain false statements regarding the safety and success rate of the Defendants' program, and results consumers can expect. The Defendants misrepresents the benefits, likely results, safety, and success rate of the programs it offers to consumers by misrepresenting that consumers will lose a certain percentage of their body weight, that its patients generally lose significantly more weight by participating in the programs rather than taking weight loss medication alone, that its program and associated medications are scientifically backed, Food and Drug Administration approved, and otherwise medically safe, and that the medication can be safely taken and will be effective, says the suit. Futurehealth Corporation provides healthcare services focused on weight loss and nutrition. The Company offers virtual medical consultations and prescriptions, personalized weight loss programs, and dietician-approved nutrition and meal planning. FutureHealth Corp serves individuals seeking weight loss and nutrition solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Mikael H. Stahle, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Blvd., Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com mstahle@maternlawgroup.com GASTRO HEALTH: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Gastro Health 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 Gastro Health data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Gastro Health Security Incident: What Happened? Gastro Health, specializing in the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders, nutrition, and digestive health, has announced a phishing-related data breach resulting in unauthorized access to certain files and systems. According to a notice posted on Gastro Health's website, the company experienced two separate phishing incidents discovered on February 25 and March 2, 2026, respectively. The information exposed in the Gastro Health data breach varied by individual and may include personal information such as names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and government- or state-issued ID numbers. The potentially compromised information also spans health-related data like patient account numbers, Medicare or Medicaid numbers, health insurance or group account numbers, diagnosis or treatment information, prescription information, and provider or clinic information. Gastro Health is reaching out directly to affected individuals where contact information is available. Gastro Health operates over 200 locations in Alabama, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, Virginia, and Washington. What You Can Do After the Gastro Health Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Gastro Health 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 Gastro Health to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] GASTRO HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Gange Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA-KAY GANGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GASTRO HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-23839 (S.D. Fla., June 1, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information, culminating in a massive and preventable data breach (the Data Breach). As part of its business practices and to provide services, Defendant collects, stores, and maintains patients’ PII and PHI, including Plaintiff's and Class Members". The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendant. Between February 25, 2026, and March 2, 2026, unauthorized cybercriminals twice gained access to Defendant’s inadequately protected computer system and Plaintiff’s and the Class Member's Private Information stored thereon. As a result of the Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and necessary data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit. Gastro Health, LLC has locations across seven U.S. states and offers services such as colon surgery, weight loss, and nutrition therapy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 602 S. Main Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: jaw@federmanlaw.com GENERAC POWER: Settles Defective Solar Panels' Suit for $15MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Generac Power Systems, Inc. has agreed to pay $15 million in a class action settlement to resolve claims that SnapRS devices in its PWRcell solar power systems are defective. The Generac settlement benefits current owners and primary users of Generac PWRcell systems purchased in the United States before Jan. 9, 2026. Owners are defined as any person or entity that holds contractual ownership rights to a PWRcell system. Primary users are homeowners or other occupants of the property where a PWRcell system is installed who are financially responsible for the electric service on the premises. Generac is a power systems company that sells generators, solar panels and other products. The company sells PWRcell solar power systems that are designed to store solar energy for later use. According to allegations made in a class action lawsuit, SnapRS devices in Generac's PWRcell systems are defective and cause the entire system to fail. Plaintiffs in the case say these devices are known to overheat, melt and fail. As a result of these defects, consumers are allegedly forced to pay out of pocket for repairs and replacements. Generac has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $15 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Generac settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of SnapRS devices in their system. Class members who submit valid claims will receive a pro rata share of the settlement fund. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of devices in each claimant's system. Class members who can provide evidence of out-of-pocket financial losses associated with a SnapRS-related problem may be able to receive reimbursement for all or some of these losses. Class members who can provide evidence of a significant loss of energy generation associated with a SnapRS-related problem for two or more months may be able to receive additional compensation. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 20, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Generac settlement is scheduled for Oct. 21, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim by Aug. 24, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits current owners and primary users of Generac PWRcell systems who purchased their systems before Jan. 9, 2026. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Proof of ownership or primary use of a PWRcell system, such as a utility bill or warranty registration; proof of the number of solar panel arrays associated with the PWRcell system, such as a photo of the inverter serial number. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/24/2026 Case Name In re: Generac Solar Power Systems Marketing Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3078, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Final Hearing 10/21/2026 Settlement Website GeneracSnapSettlement.com Claims Administrator Generac PWRcell Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 1628 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 info@GeneracSnapSettlement.com (855) 707-4196 Class Counsel Ian J. Barlow KERSHAW TALLEY BARLOW P.C. Mark P. Chalos LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP Scott C. Harris BRYSON, HARRIS, SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC James J. Rosemergy CAREY & DANIS LLC Harper T. Segui LEE SEGUI PLLC Defense Counsel MAYER BROWN LLP [GN] GENERAC POWER: Yafchak Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Ill. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Generac Power Systems, Inc. The case is captioned as GERALD YAFCHAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-05559 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for fraud claims. Generac Power Systems, Inc. is an energy solutions company, headquartered in Waukesha, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Douglas Moore, Esq. REESE LLP 121 N. Washington Ave., Ste. 4th Floor Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Email: cmoore@reesellp.com - and - Michael Robert Reese, Esq. REESE LLP Central Avenue, Ste. 5544 St. Petersburg, FL 33707 Telephone: (212) 643-5300 Email: mreese@reesellp.com GENERAL MOTORS: Gonzalez Balks at Vehicles' Water Intrusion Defect ------------------------------------------------------------------ Filiberto Loza Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 1:26-at-02324 (E.D. Cal., June 1, 2026) alleges that Defendant's Class Vehicles are equipped with a defective rear sliding glass windows (Water Intrusion Defect). This is a class action brought by Plaintiff, for himself and on behalf all Class Members who purchased or leased the following vehicles in California, that were first placed into service after January 3, 2019: model year 2019 new model Chevrolet Silverado 1500 vehicles, 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 vehicles, 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 HD vehicles, 2020 Chevrolet 3500HD vehicles, 2019 new model GMC Sierra 1500 vehicles, 2020 GMC Sierra 1500 vehicles, 2020 GMC Sierra 2500 HD vehicles, and 2020 GMC Sierra 3500HD vehicles. According to the complaint, the defect is that the rear sliding glass windows are susceptible to water intrusion. The rear window consists of fixed glass and a sliding glass. The frame of the window is plastic and sealed with a urethane seal. When manufactured, the Class Vehicles were expected to be made with the ability to endure weather consistent with that of a car that would remain outdoors all or some of the time, including being exposed to rain and fluctuations in temperature, the suit says. On or about April 29, 2019, Plaintiff Gonzalez purchased a new 2019 GMC Sierra 1500 truck, VIN 1GTU9BEDXKZ295511 (Gonzalez Vehicle) from Fresno Buick GMC. Fresno is a GM franchise dealership, authorized by GM to perform warranty repairs and sell GM vehicles. GM is a limited liability company, organized and in existence under the laws of the State of Delaware and registered with the Secretary of State to conduct business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Starr, Esq. Adam Rose, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23622 Calabasas Road, Suite 320 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com adam@starrlaw.com GKN AEROSPACE: Page Sues Over Mishandling of Hazardous Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- DUANE PAGE and MICHELLE CARLISLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GKN AEROSPACE TRANSPARENCY SYSTEMS INC.; GKN AEROSPACE SERVICES LTD.; and MELROSE INDUSTRIES PLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-01293 (C.D. Cal., May 23, 2026) is an action arising from the negligent storage, containment, handling, monitoring, and release of methyl methacrylate ("MMA") and related hazardous chemical vapors from Defendants' facility located at Garden Grove, California. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a result of the MMA release and resulting toxic plume, surrounding residents and property owners, including Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class, were subjected to evacuation orders, shelter-in-place directives, exposure concerns, noxious chemical odors, fear of contamination, interference with the use and enjoyment of their homes and properties, and other damages. GKN Aerospace Transparency Systems, Inc. operates in the aviation industry. The Company operates as a producer of special aerospace products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Filippo Marchino, Esq. Carlos X. Colorado, Esq. Thomas E. Gray, Esq. THE X-LAW GROUP, P.C. 625 Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 390 South Pasadena, CA 91030 Telephone: (213) 599-3380 Email: fm@xlawx.com cc@xlawx.com tg@xlawx.com - and - Lawrence J. Conlan, Esq. Travis C. Logue, Esq. Mandy D. Moua, Esq. PRESIDIO LAW FIRM LLP 150 E Carrillo St Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 399-3222 Email: ljc@presidiofirm.com tcl@presidiofirm.com mdm@presidiofirm.com HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Recalls Motorcycles Due to Oil Defect Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Harley-Davidson is recalling 88,039 motorcycles, including specific models like the 2024–2026 FLTRX and FLHX and 2025–2026 FXBR and FLFB. Why: A defect may cause oil to eject from the motorcycle, increasing the risk of injury. Where: The Harley-Davidson recall is active in the United States. Harley-Davidson is recalling nearly 90,000 motorcycles due to a defect that could potentially cause oil ejection, posing an injury risk. The Harley-Davidson recall was announced following the discovery of a problem with the breather port, which may become blocked. This blockage can lead to pressure building inside the crankcase. If the dipstick is removed while the crankcase is pressurized, oil could be expelled from the fill spout, creating a hazard. The recall affects 88,039 Harley-Davidson motorcycles, including select models, such as the 2024–2026 FLTRX and FLHX and 2025–2026 FXBR and FLFB, as reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Dealers to inspect and repair Harley-Davidson motorcycles at no cost In response to this defect, Harley-Davidson says its dealers will conduct inspections of the breather ports and address any blockages at no cost to the motorcycle owners. Notification letters are expected to be sent to motorcycle owners by May 11, according to the NHTSA. For further information regarding the Harley-Davidson recall, affected motorcycle owners are encouraged to reach out to Harley-Davidson customer service at 1-800-258-2464. This line is available for any inquiries or concerns related to the recall process. Harley-Davidson says it has not received any reports of injuries related to the recall so far. The company is not currently facing legal action over the recall, but Top Class Actions follows recalls closely as they sometimes lead to class action lawsuits. [GN] HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Rutherford Loses Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY C. RUTHERFORD, JR. and MARY RUTHERFORD, and JOHNNY RUTHERFORD on behalf of those similarly situated, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, A Mutual Legal Reserve Company, doing business in Montana as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, and MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 6:24-cv-00081-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Morris entered an order denying Rutherford's motion for class certification and appointment of Class Counsel. The Court declines to reinstate Rutherford's Article III standing at class certification based on Rutherford's claim that HCSC impermissibly "picked off" Rutherford through payment of his claim. Rutherford could not seek reprocessing on a class-wide basis at the time Rutherford amended his complaint to add class action claims. Rutherford lacked, and continues to lack, Article III standing to assert his classwide claims for injunctive relief in the form of reprocessing. Rutherford moves the Court for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) against HCSC for systematically having denied claims as "not medically necessary" due to insufficient documentation without reasonably having investigated the claims before denial. Rutherford provides the following class definition: "All policyholders and plan members covered under non-ERISA health plans in Montana that are administered by HCSC and subject to Montana claim handling law, who within the applicable statute of limitations period have had claims denied by HCSC as "not medically necessary," where the denial was expressly based on lack of documentation to meet the requirements of the applicable medical policy, and where such claims were subject to HCSC’s standard operating procedure ("NMN SOP") that governs medical necessity determinations." Health Care is a member-owned health insurance company in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pod2IB at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTHEQUITY INC: Renewed Bid to Compel Arbitration Filed --------------------------------------------------------- HealthEquity, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2026, that it is facing a consolidated putative class action lawsuit in federal court in the District of Utah as a result of a cybersecurity incident in 2025, in which a business partner's user account containing personally identifiable information was breached. The plaintiffs allege that the company failed to implement reasonable data security practices, which resulted in a breach and disclosure of plaintiffs' and others' personally identifiable information and protected health information. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other damages, unspecified monetary damages, equitable relief, costs, and attorneys' fees arising out of the incident. On December 13, 2024, the company filed a motion to dismiss the class action and a motion to compel arbitration. On May 5, 2025, the court dismissed the company's motion to compel arbitration without prejudice as ell as the the motion to dismiss, with the court noting that the company could refile both motions after the conclusion of discovery. On May 15, 2026, the company filed its renewed motion to compel arbitration. HealthEquity, Inc. is a technology-enabled services company that administers health savings accounts and other consumer-directed benefits, providing platforms, tools, and support to help individuals manage healthcare-related spending and savings. The Company partners with employers, benefits advisors, and health plans across the United States. HORMEL FOODS: Trial Set in Turkey Antitrust MDL ----------------------------------------------- Hormel Foods Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 26, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2026, that it is currently facing "In re Turkey Antitrust Litigation" in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where beginning in December 2019 a series of class action complaints were filed against the company, several other turkey-processing companies, and a benchmarking service called "Agri Stats." The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that from at least 2010 to 2017 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of turkey products, including through the use of Agri Stats, in violation of federal antitrust laws. The complaints brought on behalf of classes of indirect purchasers also assert causes of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws. They seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys fees. Since the original filing, certain direct-action plaintiffs have opted out of class treatment and are proceeding with individual direct actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future. The defendants' motions for summary judgment were submitted in January 2026, and those summary judgment motions remain pending. On May 20, 2026, the court ordered that the first trial related to these matters, if required, will involve only the class of direct purchaser plaintiffs and is scheduled to commence on Oct. 8, 2026. Hormel Foods is a global branded food company known for its portfolio of meat and protein products sold through retail, foodservice, and international channels. Founded in 1891 and headquartered in Austin, Minnesota, the company markets a range of consumer and commercial food brands in the United States and abroad. IAMP LLC: Faces Dormeus Suit Over Alleged Racial Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- CLENITAT DORMEUS, Plaintiff v. IAMP, LLC; CAMBRIDGE HEALTH EDUCATION I, LLC; and CAMBRIDGE COLLEGE OF HEALTHCARE & TECHNOLOGY, and CHRISTOPHER PEREZ, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-61501-AHS (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2026) is class action arising from an alleged pattern of intentional race and national origin discrimination, retaliation, defamation, and contract abuse against Plaintiff, a Black, Haitian-American student in Defendants' Radiologic Technology program. The case alleges that Professor Christopher Perez targeted Plaintiff because of her race, color, and national origin, by interfering with examinations and manipulating grading procedures, fabricating disciplinary write-ups, and a creating a publicly hostile classroom, while extending lenient grading, unobstructed examination conditions, and procedural fairness to similarly situated students outside of Plaintiff's protected categories. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Florida Civil Rights Act, and Florida common law. IAMP, LLC is a Florida limited liability company that operates the Cambridge College of Healthcare & Technology, a private postsecondary educational institution located in Miramar, Broward County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine A. Chin, Esq. CHIN LAW PA 33 Southwest 2nd Avenue, Suite 1100 Miami, FL, 33130 Telephone: (786) 505–1225 E-mail: kc@legalchin.com IL LEONE LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Calle Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- LUIS CALLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IL LEONE LLC; IZZY DZURETA; and BARIJE DZURETA, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05760 (D.N.J., May 20, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Calle was employed by the Defendants as a cook. Il Leone LLC is a restaurant operating company known primarily for Il Leone, an acclaimed Neapolitan pizzeria founded by chef and owner Ben Wexler-Waite. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino (Justin) Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 Email: info@jcpclaw.com INDUSTRIAL ACCEPTANCE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Industrial Acceptance Corporation 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 Industrial Acceptance Corporation data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Industrial Acceptance Corporation Security Incident: What Happened? Industrial Acceptance Corporation (IAC), which offers automotive financing options to customers at dozens of East Coast car dealerships, has reported a data breach affecting 79,216 people. According to a letter sent to the Maine Attorney General's Office, IAC discovered unauthorized network activity on February 24, 2025, which it later determined to be a ransomware attack. A report submitted to the California Attorney General's Office indicates that the Industrial Acceptance Corporation data breach occurred on February 22, two days prior to its discovery. On or around March 4, 2025, an investigation into the IAC data breach determined that files were exfiltrated from the company's network during the ransomware attack. A review of the affected files concluded on May 11, 2026 and determined that names, driver's license numbers, and Social Security numbers may have been compromised. Impacted individuals were notified by mail on May 28, 2026. What You Can Do After the Industrial Acceptance Corporation Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Industrial Acceptance Corporation 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 Industrial Acceptance Corporation to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Secures Dismissal of Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Foley & Lardner LLP secured dismissal of a putative federal securities class action against leading real estate investment trust Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (NYSE: IIPR) and several of its executives. The case, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the company's public statements concerning tenant oversight, due diligence, and investments in certain cannabis operators. Plaintiffs sought to represent investors who purchased IIPR securities during a more than one-year proposed class period. The Foley team obtained a complete dismissal of the action at the pleading stage. In a detailed opinion dated May 27, 2026, the court concluded that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead actionable misrepresentations or omissions and failed to allege facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The court also dismissed the related control-person claims asserted against the individual defendants. The ruling represents a significant victory for IIPR and its management team and highlights Foley's experience defending public companies, directors, and officers in complex securities litigation and shareholder disputes. Foley's litigation team included partners Todd Murray and Andrew Howell along with senior counsel Jarren Ginsburg. [GN] INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MOORE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS, INC.; INSTRUCTURE, INC.; KKR & CO. INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00472 (D. Utah, May 22, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of the Plaintiff and the Class. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach and its consequences would not have occurred absent Instructure's failure to implement rudimentary data-security measures and to respond appropriately to known threats and vulnerabilities. Instructure consistently failed to implement and maintain reasonable, industry-standard data security measures commensurate with the volume, sensitivity, and legal significance of the information entrusted to it. As a result, ShinyHunters was able to access Instructure's systems, exfiltrate massive quantities of Private Information, and publish a ransom demand threatening to release data, says the suit. Instructure Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides learning management system dedicated to elevating student success, amplifying the power of teaching, and inspiring everyone to learn together. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W Monroe St, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - William Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (855) 735-5945 Email: wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Becker Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES BECKER, on behalf of his minor child J.M.U., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00452-DAO (D. Utah, May 18, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and former consumers. But the Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). Cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Instructure Inc. provides online education technology. The Company offers products assisting in grading assignments, integrating calendars, and editing content. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 456-7655 Email: jhull@Mohtrial.Com - and - Raina C. Borelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Email: raina@straussborelli.com KIA AMERICA: O'Connell Sues Over Defective Kia Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS O'CONNELL, MICHAEL RODEN, RENEE SEVOR, DAVID SMOLLETT, and MEGAN O'NEIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KIA AMERICA, INC.; KIA CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-01291 (C.D. Cal., May 22, 2026) is an action arising from Kia's failure to disclose to the Plaintiffs and other consumers of the Class Vehicles that they are subject to a defect with the digital instrument cluster, which is deficient and prone to failure (the "Instrument Cluster Defect") and to adequately remedy the Instrument Cluster Defect. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Class Vehicles suffer from a latent defect whereby the instrument cluster display intermittently and suddenly goes completely blank during vehicle operation. The blank-screen condition may occur at vehicle startup and while the Class Vehicles are actively being driven. When the Instrument Cluster Defect manifests, the display shows a black screen, resulting in the complete loss of visual access to safety-critical information, including but not limited to vehicle speed, engine speed, fuel level, tire pressure monitoring system status, warning and malfunction telltales, driver assistance alerts, and odometer information, says the suit. Kia Motors America, Inc. operates as an automobile dealer. The Company offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles, crossovers, sedans, vans, and cargo trucks. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. David C. Wright, Esq. Todd A. Walburg, Esq. Jordan I. Wispell, Esq. Scott B. Baez, Esq. McCUNE LAW GROUP 31 W. Stuart Avenue, Suite 300 Redlands, California 92374 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Email: rdm@mccunelawgroup.com dcw@mccunelawgroup.com taw@mccunelawgroup.com jiw@mccunelawgroup.com sbb@mccunelawgroup.com KRISTI NOEM: Abdo Suit Stayed pending Supreme Court's Decision -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abdo Doe, et al., v. Kristi Noem, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02280-DEH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ho entered an order that with the exception of briefing on class certification, the case is stayed pending the decision of the Supreme Court. The previously scheduled deadlines for class certification briefing remain in place. On review of the parties' joint status letter, the Court concludes that, for good cause shown a partial stay is warranted pending the Supreme Court's decision in Noem v. Dahlia Doe, No. 25- 1083, 2026 WL 731088 (U.S. Mar. 16, 2026), and Trump v. Miot, No. 25-1084, 2026 WL 731087 (U.S. Mar. 16, 2026). The parties are directed to file a joint status letter within three days of the Supreme Court's decision in the above cases. The letter should include the parties' respective positions on the impact of that decision on this litigation, not to exceed two pages each. If appropriate, the parties shall attach a proposed case management plan to the letter. Kristi Noem is an American politician who served as the eighth United States secretary of homeland security from 2025 to 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BOkmjs at no extra charge.[CC] KRISTI NOEM: Noor Suit Stayed Pending Supreme Court's Decision -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Noor Doe, et al., v. Kristi Noem, et al., Case No. 26-CV-2103 (DEH) (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ho entered an order that with the exception of briefing on class certification, the case is stayed pending the decision of the Supreme Court. The previously scheduled deadlines for class certification briefing remain in place. On review of the parties' joint status letter, the Court concludes that, for good cause shown a partial stay is warranted pending the Supreme Court's decision in Noem v. Dahlia Doe, No. 25- 1083, 2026 WL 731088 (U.S. Mar. 16, 2026), and Trump v. Miot, No. 25-1084, 2026 WL 731087 (U.S. Mar. 16, 2026). The parties are directed to file a joint status letter within three days of the Supreme Court's decision in the above cases. The letter should include the parties' respective positions on the impact of that decision on this litigation, not to exceed two pages each. If appropriate, the parties shall attach a proposed case management plan to the letter. Kristi Noem is an American politician who served as the eighth United States secretary of homeland security from 2025 to 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kf2OZ4 at no extra charge.[CC] KRISTI NOEM: Seeks More Time to File Class Certification Response ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe et al., v. Noem et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02280-DEH (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order that their deadline to respond to the class certification motion be extended by three weeks, to June 18, 2026. The requested extension is necessary to provide the government with adequate time to prepare the opposition brief given that the undersigned Assistant U.S. Attorneys have several competing work obligations, and one of us will be out of the office on a previously scheduled leave for the next week. The government notes that the Court has already effectively granted class-wide interim relief by postponing the Secretary's termination as to parties and non-parties alike. Thus, plaintiffs and the putative class will not be prejudiced by extending the briefing schedule. This is the government's second request to extend this deadline, and plaintiffs consent to the request only in part. Specifically, the plaintiffs agree to extend the government's opposition deadline by one week, to June 4, 2026, on the understanding that their reply brief would be due two weeks later, on June 18, 2026. This putative class action challenges the Secretary of Homeland Security's termination of Yemen's Temporary Protected Status ("TPS") designation. On May 21, 2026, the parties submitted a letter to the Court in which the government requested that all deadlines in this case and in a related case. The Defendant is A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PoeZZH at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jay Clayton, Esq. Mark Osmond, Esq. Adam Gitlin, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 637-2713/2734 E-mail: mark.osmond@usdoj.gov adam.gitlin@usdoj.gov LCPTRACKER INC: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Suit for $495,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that people who received an individual notification from LCPtracker that the August 2024 data breach impacted their personal information may qualify to submit a claim for up to $2,500 from a class action settlement. LCPtracker Inc. agreed to pay $495,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging a targeted cyberattack exposed files containing personal information, including names and Social Security numbers. The data breach compromised approximately 40,963 people. Who can file a claim for a data breach payout? Class members are United States residents who received an individual notification from LCPtracker stating the August 2024 data breach affected them. How much are settlement payments? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Cash payment A - Documented losses: Class members who experienced actual out-of-pocket losses due to the data breach can claim up to $2,500. Losses must have occurred between Aug. 14, 2024, and Aug. 8, 2026. Eligible expenses include losses from identity theft or fraud, fees for credit reports or monitoring, costs to replace IDs and postage for contacting banks. -- Cash payment B - Pro rata cash payment: Class members who do not submit a documented looses claim can submit a claim to receive a one-time cash payment estimated to be $50. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of claims filed. -- Credit monitoring services: All class members can elect to receive two years of single-bureau credit monitoring, which also includes $1 million in identity theft insurance, real-time credit file and public records monitoring, dark web scanning and access to fraud resolution agents. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: LCPtracker Data Incident Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799 The claim deadline is Aug. 8, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- To submit a claim online, class members must provide the unique ID and PIN from the settlement notice they received. -- Documented losses claims require supporting documentation, which may include receipts, invoices, bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed fees or fraudulent charges and other proof of fraud or identity theft. Payout options -- Paper check (only option for mailed claims) -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle Settlement fund breakdown The $495,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $135,000 -- Attorneys' costs: To be presented to the court for approval at a later date -- Service awards to class representatives: $3,000 each ($6,000 total) -- Credit monitoring services: Cost determined by number of claims filed -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: July 24, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 8, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Aug. 24, 2026 When is the LCPtracker data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments and credit monitoring information to approved claimants no later than 75 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit claimed a targeted cyberattack on LCPtracker Inc.'s computer systems in August 2024 allegedly exposed files containing personally identifiable information. LCPtracker denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainty of ongoing litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $2,500 plus credit monitoring Deadline: August 8, 2026 [GN] LUCID GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 28 ------------------------------------------------------------ A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Lucid Group, Inc. ("Lucid") (NASDAQ: LCID). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding Lucid's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (i) a supplier quality issue had significantly disrupted deliveries of the Lucid Gravity; (ii) the foregoing was likely to, and did, have a material negative impact on Lucid's business and financial results; and (iii) accordingly, the Defendants had overstated the purported enhancements to Lucid's manufacturing and delivery capabilities and overall operations. If you purchased Lucid shares between February 25, 2026 and April 13, 2026, and experienced a loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/lucid/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is July 28, 2026. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] LUCID GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Lucid Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LCID) securities between February 25, 2026 and April 13, 2026. Lucid is a technology company that designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric vehicles ("EVs"), EV powertrains, and battery systems. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Lucid Group, Inc. (LCID) Failed to Disclose Significant Supplier and Delivery Issues to Investors According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose that: 1. a supplier quality issue had significantly disrupted deliveries of the Lucid Gravity; 2. the foregoing was likely to, and did, have a material negative impact on the Company's business and financial results; 3. accordingly, the defendants had overstated the purported enhancements to Lucid's manufacturing and delivery capabilities and overall operations; and 4. as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Plaintiff alleges that on April 14, 2026, Lucid filed a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC, reporting, inter alia, its preliminary Q1 2026 financial results, including revenue in the range of $280 million to $284 million -- well below the consensus estimate of $433.8 million -- and losses from operations in the range of $985 million to $1.005 billion. The same day, Lucid issued a press release revealing its plans for a $1.05 billion capital raise, including a $300 million public stock offering. Following these disclosures, Lucid's stock price fell $0.44 per share, or 4.76%, to close at $8.80 per share on April 14, 2026. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Lucid Group, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN] MEDICAL SOLUTIONS: Mismanages Retirement Plans, Andersen Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- NATALIE ANDERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL SOLUTIONS L.L.C.; and MEDICAL SOLUTIONS LLC, EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03123-RSH-MSB (S.D. Cal., May 19, 2026) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as fiduciaries to Medical Solutions 401(k) Plan ("the Plan"), the Defendants were obligated to act prudently and for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. Defendants violated their fiduciary duties of prudence by imprudently removing the Plan's American Funds Target Return Fund series ("AF TDF") and replacing that series with the JP Morgan SmartRetirement Target Date Fund series ("JPM TDF"), despite the AF TDF's exceptionally strong long‑term performance under Defendants' own criteria and monitoring reports and all accepted Modern Portfolio Theory ("MPT") metrics measuring, returns, risk adjusted performance, manager performance, and cost. As a result of the Defendants' imprudent decision to remove the AF TDF and retain the JPM TDF Funds, Plan participants earned millions of dollars less in retirement savings than they would have earned had Defendants acted prudently, says the suit. Medical Solutions LLC operates as a travel nursing company. The Company provides benefits such as personalized pay package, medical and dental insurance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Outlander Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Aug 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Mitsubishi agreed to a class action settlement to resolve claims that certain 2022 Outlander vehicles were equipped with defective hoods that flutter while driving. The Mitsubishi class action settlement benefits current and former owners and lessees of certain 2022 Mitsubishi Outlander vehicles. Consumers can check their vehicle's eligibility using the vehicle identification number lookup tool on the settlement website. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim that certain 2022 Mitsubishi Outlander vehicles were equipped with defective hoods that flutter and bounce while driving. This defect allegedly poses a safety risk to drivers and their passengers. Mitsubishi, an automotive company that sells a variety of vehicles, has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Mitsubishi Outlander settlement, class members can receive a hood replacement and reimbursement for past repairs. The Mitsubishi Outlander settlement extends Mitsubishi's new vehicle limited warranty to cover 100% of the cost of hood replacement repairs. This extended warranty lasts 18 months and began on May 1, 2026. The extended warranty also applies to vehicles that received a hood replacement before May 1, 2026. Class members who paid out of pocket for hood repairs or replacements, including parts, labor and related rental car expenses, may receive 100% reimbursement. Those with supporting documentation may recover up to $4,595. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 15, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Mitsubishi Outlander class action settlement is scheduled for Aug. 3, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form and supporting documentation by July 30, 2026. Who's Eligible The Mitsubishi class action settlement benefits current and former owners and lessees of certain 2022 Mitsubishi Outlander vehicles. Consumers can check their vehicle's eligibility using the VIN lookup tool on the settlement website. Potential Award Up to $4,595 in repair, replacement and rental reimbursements Proof of Purchase Repair invoices, bank statements, receipts and/or other documentation 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 07/30/2026 Case Name Damocles, et al. v. Mitsubishi Motors North America Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00401, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Final Hearing 08/03/2026 Settlement Website HoodSettlement.com Claims Administrator Damocles v. Mitsubishi Motors North America Inc. Claims Administrator P.O. Box 301132 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1132 admin@hoodsettlement.com (888) 238-0781 Class Counsel Sergei Lemberg LEMBERG LAW LLC Defense Counsel Janet Hickson SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP [GN] MOTILITY SOFTWARE: Agrees to Settle 2025 Data Breach Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Motility Software Solutions has agreed to a $4,949,500 settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit that alleged the dealership management software provider failed to protect sensitive information in its care from an August 2025 data breach. The $4.94 million Motility Software Solutions class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 22, 2026. The agreement covers all United States residents who were impacted by the August 2025 data breach. Per court documents, approximately 760,797 people are covered by the settlement. The court-approved website for the Motility Software Solutions settlement can be found at MotilityDataBreachLitigation.com. Motility settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses related to identity theft or fraud stemming from the data breach. Class members must submit proof, such as correspondence or receipts, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can submit a claim form to receive a cash payment of approximately $75, with no proof required. These payments may increase or decrease depending on the number of claims filed, among other factors. Finally, all class members may submit a claim form to receive two years of credit monitoring, which includes identity theft insurance and access to fraud resolution agents. To submit a Motility settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Motility settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by August 7, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Motility settlement final approval following a hearing on August 14, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Motility Software Solutions class action lawsuit alleged that the provider of management software to recreational vehicle, bus, and marine dealerships failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect the private information of its dealer-clients' current and former customers, which allegedly led to a data breach on or around August 11, 2025. According to court documents, information that may have been compromised in the breach includes names, addresses, contact information, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers. [GN] MT. BAKER IMAGING: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $3.3-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nicole Aljets of ClassAction.org reports that individuals currently residing in the United States whose private information the January 2025 Mt. Baker Imaging and Northwest Radiologists data breach potentially or actually compromised may be eligible to submit a claim for up to $5,000 plus additional benefits from a class action settlement. The cybersecurity incident impacted approximately 340,184 people. Mt. Baker Imaging LLC and Northwest Radiologists Inc. agreed to pay $3.3 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging they failed to implement and maintain necessary data security safeguards, which led to a ransomware attack and the exposure of patients' personally identifiable and protected health information. Who can file a claim for a data breach payout? Class members are individuals residing in the United States whose private information the Mt. Baker Imaging and Northwest Radiologists data breach that occurred between Jan. 20 and Jan. 25, 2025, potentially or actually compromised. How much are settlement payments? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses: Class members can claim up to $5,000 for documented expenses that are fairly traceable to the data breach and that another party has not reimbursed. Eligible expenses include monetary losses due to fraud or identity theft; credit monitoring costs after the data breach; bank, accountant or attorney fees; and postage for contacting financial institutions. -- Pro rata cash fund payment: All class members can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment from the net settlement fund after the settlement administrator pays all other claims. The administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of claims filed. -- Medical identity theft protection and monitoring: All class members can elect to receive two years of Medical Shield Complete. Services include medical and health care data monitoring for signs of fraud and single-bureau credit monitoring. How to claim a class action rebate To claim a a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Mt. Baker Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 1711, Baton Rouge, LA 70821 The claim deadline is Aug. 19, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- All claims require the settlement claim ID from the settlement notice the class member received. -- Out-of-pocket losses claims require supporting documentation, which may include receipts, invoices, bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed fees or fraudulent charges, and other proof of fraud or identity theft. Payout options -- Venmo -- PayPal -- Zelle -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The $3,300,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Not specified -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $1,100,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be presented to the court for approval at a later date -- Service awards to class representatives: $4,000 each -- Medical identity- heft protection: Cost determined by the number of claims filed -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: July 20, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 19, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Aug. 21, 2026 When is the Mt. Baker Imaging data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants after it completes claim processing or approximately 90 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement, whichever is later. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit claimed a ransomware attack on Mt. Baker Imaging LLC and Northwest Radiologists Inc. in January 2025 resulted in the exposure of confidential PII and PHI. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants failed to implement adequate data security measures, causing damages to affected individuals. The defendants denied the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the risk and expense of continued litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $5,000 plus a pro rata payment and data monitoring Deadline: August 19, 2026 [GN] MT. BAKER: Agrees to Settle Ransomware Attack Class Suit for $3.3MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Isaac Stone Simonelli, writing for Cascadia Daily News, reports that Mt. Baker Imaging and Northwest Radiologists agreed to a proposed $3.3 million settlement in a class action lawsuit that alleged thousands of patients' personal data was stolen due to "negligence and inadequate" security measures. Mailers notifying patients of the proposed settlement for the January 2025 ransomware attack started showing up in mailboxes this month. Four separate class-action lawsuits were consolidated in the settlement, which provides up to $5,000 per affected person for "out-of-pocket losses." These costs can include money lost due to fraud or identity theft, unreimbursed costs of credit monitoring and other clearly documented items connected to the cyber attack. Patients can also claim a pro rata fund payment, which is essentially the division of the remaining funds after all other expenses are paid, including attorney fees not to exceed $1.1 million and $4,000 per person for the handful of patients named in the cases. Additionally, patients can claim two years of a medical data protection and monitoring service. The agreement "is intended to fully, finally and forever resolve all claims" and does not admit fault or liability, according to the settlement agreement. However, patients involved can exclude themselves from the agreement to preserve a right to file a claim outside the settlement. That deadline is July 20. The final hearing for the proposed settlement agreement was set for August 21. Claims can be submitted at https://www.mtbakerdatasettlement.com/ Through the attack, hackers accessed records of more than 348,000 Washington residents. These included patients' first and last names in combination with various other information, such as Social Security numbers, diagnosis, treatment, address, driver's license number, email address, phone number and/or patient identification number. Mt. Baker Imaging, which has six locations in Whatcom County, provides a variety of services, including ultrasounds, MRIs, CT scans, X-rays and 3D mammograms. Northwest Radiologists physicians interpret the images. The company first called the ransomware attack an ongoing "computer network disruption" on Jan. 28, 2025. Cybercriminals first accessed and started stealing sensitive patient data on Jan. 20. The problem wasn't identified until roughly five days later. Nearly two months after the January attack, the outpatient diagnostic imaging company notified readers of its website that a data breach had occurred. [GN] NATIONAL BASKETBALL: Faces Suit Over Unfair Telemarketing Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ TCPAWorld reports that so the NBA is right in the middle of its playoffs but they will have to play defense on a whole different level. A consumer named George Head who resides in Orange County, California has sued the NBA claiming it continued to send him marketing SMS messages even after he requested they stop. The allegations here are pretty thin but here is what he claims: On or about November 29, 2025, Plaintiff requested to opt-out of Defendant's text messages by replying with a stop instruction. Defendant ignored Plaintiff's request and continued text messaging Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, on or about December 15, 2025. Overall, Defendant sent Plaintiff more than one marketing text message after Plaintiff's initial stop request. The purpose of Defendant's text messages was to solicit the sale of consumer goods, services, and/or properties Ok. We have been seeing a ton of these revocation cases lately -- something EVERYBODY needs to be VERY aware of since consumers do NOT just need to reply "stop" to effectuate an opt out. The Plaintiff contends the messages demonstrate the NBA lacked the formal written internal DNC policy required by the TCPA. On the basis of these rather thing allegations Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of: All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit through the date of class certification, received two or more text messages within any 12-month period, from or on behalf of Defendant, regarding Defendant's goods, services, or properties, to said person's residential cellular telephone number, after communicating to Defendant that they did not wish to receive text messages by replying to the messages with a "stop" or similar opt-out instruction You can read the whole complaint here: https://tcpaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/NBA-Complaint.pdf Shouldn't be too hard to shake this one, assuming the NBA has the written policy required by the TCPA regs. If they don't, however, the NBA could find itself in a catastrophic situation. If YOU need help making sure you have all the TCPA policies and procedures you need–and that they are up to date with all the new changes out there -- be sure to give Troutman Amin, LLP a ring to discuss. And if you're not FULLY up to date on the rules around SMS revocation you REALLY need to give us a call.[GN] NEW YORK, NY: ACS Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Child Removals --------------------------------------------------------------- NYU LAW reports that a coalition of legal advocates, including NYU Law's Family Defense Clinic filed a major class action against New York City's Administration for Children's Services (ACS) on Thursday, May 28, challenging what they describe as a decades-long pattern of removing children from their families without first obtaining a court order -- a practice that they argue violates both New York State law and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. The suit, believed to be the first of its kind, is brought on behalf of both parents and children -- groups the child welfare system has often positioned as being at odds. "As courts have repeatedly recognized, children's and parents' interests are aligned most of the time, and they always share an interest in due process," says Professor of Law Chris Gottlieb '97, who directs the Family Defense Clinic. "We are trying to breathe life into constitutional protections that are being trampled on a daily basis." ACS's own data shows that approximately 50 percent of child removals occur without a court order -- a figure Gottlieb believes is an undercount. Over 25 percent of children taken under these circumstances are sent home immediately when the case goes before a judge, and even more go home after extended hearings, suggesting they never should have been removed in the first place, Gottlieb says. Those children often spend time at ACS's Children's Center, a temporary shelter for children awaiting court dates or foster care placement, sometimes without medication, a change of clothes, or any explanation of what is happening to them. At the heart of the lawsuit is a straightforward legal argument: barring a genuine emergency, caseworkers should be required to go before a judge and obtain a court order before removing a child -- just as law enforcement must obtain a warrant before conducting a search or seizure. The case also makes a race discrimination claim against a system that admits Hispanic children into foster care at a rate 8.4 times higher than white children and Black children at a rate 15.6 times higher. "Rights are only rights if we're protecting them in all communities," Gottlieb says. The coalition bringing the suit reflects the growing recognition of family defense as a mainstream civil rights issue. NYU Law's clinic is joined by the CUNY Family Defense Clinic, the Family Justice Law Center -- founded by NYU Law alumnus David Shalleck-Klein '16 -- and the Center for Constitutional Rights, whose legal director, Baher Azmy '96, another NYU Law alumnus, also teaches a civil rights law class at NYU Law. The Legal Aid Society will represent the child plaintiffs. Gottlieb, who has carried forward the family defense movement that her predecessor, Fiorello LaGuardia Professor of Clinical Law Emeritus Martin Guggenheim '71, nurtured at NYU Law over decades, is hopeful that the filing will prompt near-term changes in ACS practice -- even before the case reaches a final resolution. "I would hope the mayor will say to his staff, 'I want to stop doing this illegally,'" she said. The longer-term goal is to permanently transform how the city's child welfare system interacts with families. [GN] NEW YORK: Class Cert. Bid Filing in De Souza Due August 28 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUZETTE DE SOUZA individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK ET AL., Case No. 1:25-cv-01222-RA-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Tarnofsky entered an order that: 1. Initial disclosures, initial requests for document production, and initial interrogatories shall be due by June 5, 2026. 2. Parties shall inform the Court by filing letters on the docket by Aug. 1, 2026 whether they expect to make use of experts. 3. Depositions shall be completed by Sept. 30, 2026, and fact discovery shall be completed by Oct. 30, 2026. 4. The Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification shall be filed by Aug. 28, 2026; with oppositions due by Sept. 28, 2026; and replies due by Oct. 16, 2026. 5. Any issues arising out of the Plaintiff's initial requests for discovery shall be raised by lettermotion by June 12, 2026. New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York City and towering Niagara Falls. A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5cUcdk at no extra charge.[CC] NEWREZ LLC: Faces Perez Suit Over Excessive Payoff Quote Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- NELSON PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWREZ LLC C/O PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. _______ (Mass. Comm., May 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Massachusetts General Laws and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unfair and deceptive practice of charging excessive payoff quote fees to borrowers in Massachusetts. According to the complaint, the payoff quote fees were not disclosed in the governing loan documents, were not part of the indebtedness secured by the mortgages, and were included within the total amount consumers were told they were required to pay in order to obtain a discharge of their mortgage loans. The Defendant assessed and collected these fees directly from borrowers during the payoff process and retained the proceeds for itself. The Plaintiff seeks to recover these unlawful charges, to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief, and to halt allegedly unfair and deceptive payoff practices that have affected borrowers throughout Massachusetts. NewRez LLC, care of PHH Mortgage Services, is a residential mortgage lender and servicer in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq. Alexander Rodriguez, Esq. CONNOR & MORNEAU, LLP 136 Dwight Road Longmeadow, MA 01106 Telephone: (413) 455-1730 Facsimile: (413) 455-1594 Email: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com adrodriguez@cmolawyers.com - and - Michael G. McDonough, Esq. EGAN, FLANAGAN AND COHEN, PC 67 Market Street, P.O. Box 9035 Telephone: (413) 737-0260 Facsimile: (413) 737-0121 Email: mgm@efclaw.com NORTH AMERICAN: Court Tosses $43.5MM Overtime Class Judgement ------------------------------------------------------------- Carleen Bongat, writing for HCA Mag, reports that misclassify your workforce and a $43.5 million bill can follow -- but here, the trial itself fell apart, and a California court wiped the judgment out. The decision, handed down May 29, 2026, closes one chapter in a case running since April 2007 -- nineteen years. The Fifth District Court of Appeal made no secret of its frustration, calling this litigation even more extreme and unwieldy than the long-running wage case it measured it against. The fight is a familiar one for any HR leader. Roughly 700 current and former employees of North American Title Company, now Lennar Title, Inc., sued over overtime. One group said the company wrongly classified them as exempt from overtime law. A second said they were pushed to work without recording their hours. Misclassification sits at the center. In California, some managerial and administrative employees can be exempt from overtime -- but only if they spend more than half their time on genuinely exempt work. As the court explained, a worker splitting time 49-51 between managerial and regular duties doesn't make the cut. The trial court ruled against the employer, decertified one class, then appointed a referee to run a second trial phase without the parties' agreement and over the company's objections. Those proceedings stretched on for years and drew testimony from more than 230 class members, ending in a judgment calculated at $43,547,946 - with prejudgment interest making up more than half. The appeals court threw it out. A forced referral on this scale, it said, appeared to have no precedent in California law, and a judge's power to hand a case to a referee without consent is sharply limited. That alone required reversal. The court also picked apart the first phase. Plaintiffs had leaned on testimony from about 24 of some 156 Branch Managers -- roughly 15 percent -- to stand in for the whole group. The court called that scientifically invalid, with no expert input on sample size and no random selection. The lesson for employers is blunt. Exempt status depends on what people actually do, not their titles. A sprawling class with many roles across many offices over a decade is hard to try as a single unit, and judges must decertify when the trial plan breaks down. The case now returns for retrial of the named plaintiffs' individual claims, with room for a new bid at class certification. [GN] NORTH BEAM: Intercepts Website Users' Communications, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN AVOTS-SMITH, DANIELLE KARAMANIAN-GLEBA, and NICOLE DANTZIC, individually and on behalf of all oth similarly situated v. NORTH BEAM, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-05210 (N.D. Cal., June 1, 2026) contends that Northbeam illegally captures, stores, and monetizes the data it intercepts. Accordingly, the information collected through Northbeam's pixel, including page views, form inputs, click activity, purchase details, and health information, is fed into Northbeam's proprietary "Device Graph," which resolves the identities of individual consumers and tracks them across the internet. Northbeam then shares this identity-resolved data with advertising platforms including Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, and Pinterest through its "Northbeam Apex" product, enabling those platforms to target advertisements to consumers based on their intercepted browsing and purchasing activity. The Plaintiffs are individuals whose electronic communications with websites in Northbeam's tracking network were intercepted by Northbeam's tracking code without their knowledge or consent. Mr. Avots-Smith visited the telehealth website joinfridays.com. Plaintiff Karamanian-Gleba visited the e-commerce website jonesroadbeauty.com. Plaintiff Dantzic visited the e-commerce website glossier.com. Each Plaintiff also visited other websites in Northbeam's network of over 1,400 tracked domains, and Northbeam intercepted their communications on those websites as well, linking each interaction to the same persistent identity profile. Northbeam was founded in 2019 and describes itself as a "marketing intelligence platform" that provides "multi-touch attribution and media mix modeling” for e-commerce and direct-to-consumer brands.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Victor J. Sandoval, Esq. Lucas Coughlin, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1121 Los Angeles, CA 90034 Telephone: (562) 534-5907 E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com luke@almeidalawgroup.com NOVUS HOME: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for MPA Mag, reports that a Wisconsin bank's mortgage cold calls have landed it in a proposed class action -- and the man leading it says he never handed over his number. Asher Bronstin sued Ixonia Bank, which operates as Novus Home Mortgage, on May 30, 2026, in federal court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The suit accuses the lender of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the 1991 federal law that polices telemarketing. According to the filing, the bank called Bronstin to pitch a mortgage even though his number had been on the National Do Not Call Registry since November 4, 2021, and he had never agreed to hear from the company. The sequence, as the lawsuit lays it out, is short and pointed. Between October and December 2024, Bronstin received at least four calls from one number. He missed three -- on October 29, October 30, and December 9, 2024 -- and answered the fourth on December 10. The filing says the agent told him she was selling a mortgage and was looking for a "Wayne Howard," not Bronstin. She passed him to a second Novus Home Mortgage agent, who tried to sell him a mortgage. Follow--up emails from that agent, the suit says, confirmed the bank had been the caller. Bronstin says he never did business with the lender and never knowingly gave it his number. There is a second claim worth a careful read. The lawsuit alleges the calls did not pass along the caller's name through caller ID, which the TCPA requires. Bronstin's lawyer checked the calling carrier's records, the filing says, and the caller name field returned "COLLEGE PARK MD" rather than the bank's name. The law, according to the suit, requires a telemarketer's calls to carry a name the recipient can use to identify the caller and ask to be left alone. Bronstin wants to stand in for two nationwide groups: people who got more than one telemarketing call from or on behalf of the bank while their numbers sat on the registry, and people whose calls failed to transmit proper caller ID. He puts the size of those groups in the hundreds, at minimum. Then there is the price tag. The TCPA sets statutory damages of up to $500 a call, rising to as much as $1,500 a call where a court finds the conduct willful or knowing. The filing calls the bank's violations "negligent, willful, or knowing," asks the court to triple the damages, seeks an order halting the calls, and requests attorneys' fees. For anyone running an outbound mortgage campaign, the lesson is direct. One misdirected dialing effort -- even a wrong-number call -- can grow into a class action when the targets were on the Do Not Call list and the caller ID was wrong. Scrubbing lists against the registry and making sure your outbound name actually shows up are not housekeeping. They are what keeps a marketing push from turning into a courtroom. None of this has been tested in court. Ixonia Bank has not yet responded, and no judge has ruled on the claims. [GN] NYU LANGONE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Singh Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JAMAL SINGH, BIANCA ALFORD, TAMARA AUGUSTIN, JOHN DAVI, ALEXANDRA FLOWERS, TEDDY JEAN-JACQUES, NIKOLAS KIMMEL, FRANCIS RODRIGUEZ, and EVERTON WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NYU LANGONE HOSPITALS, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04322 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as patient Access supervisors. NYU Langone Hospitals provides medical and general surgical services. The Hospital offers cancer care, cardiovascular diseases, children care, neurology, orthopedics, rehabilitation, fertility, weight loss, epilepsy, and gynecology. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Trinidad Lira, Esq. Elizabeth Pollock, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Email: jlira@employeejustice.com epollock@employeejustice.com OAKLAND CITY UNIVERSITY: Employees Sue Over Missing Paychecks ------------------------------------------------------------- Will Peppers, writing for WZDM. reports that some employees at Oakland City University say they're preparing a class action lawsuit after going more than a month without pay. Faculty and staff say they've missed multiple paychecks, and frustration is building over what they describe as repeated promises that haven't been met. University President Dr. Ron Dempsey told employees their missed pay would be deposited Wednesday, but later said he was "misled" about the status of the funds. Employees say the situation has left many struggling to cover basic bills like rent, mortgages, and groceries, and say communication from the university has been unclear. [GN] OFFICE DEPOT: Class Certification Bid in Cross Due May 18, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE CROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-05171-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule as follows: The Plaintiff’s motion for class certification May 18, 2027 due by: The Defendant's opposition to motion for class June 15, 2027 certification due by: The Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for July 6, 2027 class certification due by: Hearing on motion for class certification: To be set by the Court Class notice and opt-out period, expert To be set by disclosures, fact discovery, dispositive the Court motions, pre-trial and trial deadlines: after ruling on class certification The Defendant is an office supply retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QEw1P2 at no extra charge.[CC] OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Settlement in Derivative Suit Gets Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Olaplex Holdings, Inc. disclosed in a current report on Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2026, that on May 7, 2026, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted preliminary approval of the settlement in a stockholder derivative action captioned "In re Olaplex Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation," Lead Case No. 2:23-cv-09712-SVW-SK. The settlement resolves all claims that were or could have been asserted in the derivative litigation and the books and records demand made by stockholder Kajeel Patel Delaware law, which involved a securities class action filed against Olaplex Holdings, Inc. in 2022. Under the settlement, the company will enact certain governance enhancements and will cause a payment to be made to the plaintiffs' counsel for their court-awarded attorneys' fees and expenses. The settlement is subject to final court approval. The Settlement resolves all claims that were or could have been asserted in the derivative litigation and the books and records demand made by stockholder Kajeel Patel pursuant to 8 Del. C. 220, which involved claims similar to those asserted in the securities class action filed against the Company in 2022. In addition, on May 29, 2026, pursuant to the court's preliminary approval order, the company is publishing the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Derivative Matters and Settlement Hearing. Olaplex Holdings, Inc. is a science-enabled, technology-driven beauty company focused on developing and marketing hair care products. The company sells its products through professional salons, specialty retailers, and direct-to-consumer channels worldwide. ORRSTOWN BANK: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Orrstown Bank 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 Orrstown Bank data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Orrstown Bank Security Incident: What Happened? Orrstown Financial Services, operating in Pennsylvania and Maryland as Orrstown Bank, recently disclosed that customer information may have been exposed in a data breach involving a vendor. According to a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), on May 21, 2026, Orrstown was notified that an unnamed third-party vendor had experienced a data breach involving unauthorized access to the sensitive information of certain Orrstown customers. Orrstown's own systems were not compromised in the incident. Orrstown has not yet specified which information may have been involved in the Orrstown Bank data breach, but the SEC notice states that impacted customers will be notified. What You Can Do After the Orrstown Bank Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Orrstown Bank 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 Orrstown Bank to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] PARADISE MEMORIAL: Jewish Arizonans Sue Suit Over New Safety Policy ------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Duhownik of Courthouse News Service reports that Jewish Arizonans sued a cemetery over a new safety policy that prevents families from burying their loved ones according to Jewish law and customs. Paradise Memorial Gardens, a Scottsdale cemetery with a section dedicated to Jewish burials, stopped lowering caskets in the presence of mourners after raising safety concerns about uneven ground near gravesites. Because Jewish tradition calls for mourners to witness the casket being lowered and help cover it with soil, the policy forces families to choose between burial alongside relatives and following their religious beliefs. Three Jewish residents who purchased plots for their own burials filed a class action Friday, May 29, accusing the cemetery of consumer fraud and breach of contract by selling the plots with the implied understanding they would receive traditional Jewish burials. Plaintiffs Janet Blinder, Lisa Singer and Gerald Levy each bought plots at Paradise Memorial Gardens more than a decade ago. They say they learned of the policy, adopted in February 2025, only after another Jewish family was denied a traditional burial for two daughters. Cindy Carpenter purchased five burial plots for $50,000 after her daughter Chelsie died of cancer in November 2025, unaware the policy had changed. At Chelsie’s funeral, mourners were allowed to watch the casket being lowered, but only from behind a rope about 20 feet away. When her other daughter, Cortney, died in January, the family was required to sign a graveside services contract that included a handwritten note stating the casket would not be lowered until the family had completely left the cemetery grounds. Alongside her signature, Cindy Carpenter wrote: “I object to this awful policy.” Her husband Jim wrote: “I acknowledge your policy and strongly object to the policy.” Carpenter asked to watch the lowering from inside a building, but was denied, according to the class action. The plaintiffs also claim that the policy has been discriminatorily enforced against Jewish mourners. “Specifically, since the policy change was implemented, non-Jewish individuals have continued to have funeral attendees present graveside as the casket is lowered into the ground during burial services. Jewish individuals, however, are prohibited from doing so.” Since the Carpenter funerals, the plaintiffs say they have spent time and money seeking religious and legal advice on how to address the policy change. The cemetery offered refunds worth only 7% of the original purchase price. Blinder says she asked Paradise Memorial Gardens to allow her husband’s remains to be moved to a nearby cemetery so she could eventually be buried beside him in accordance with Jewish tradition, but the request was denied. The plaintiffs seek to represent anyone who purchased a plot before Feb. 14, 2025, and who, for religious reasons, intends for mourners to remain present while a casket is lowered during a funeral service. Each plot agreement signed to consummate a sale states: “No other terms or conditions, and no amendments shall bind either party unless the same are reduced to writing and signed by the purchaser and seller.” By enacting the policy change without consulting plot owners, the plaintiffs say the cemetery violated the plain language of those agreements. In 1989, Ahavat Torah Congregation, a conservative Jewish Synagogue, established a section within the cemetery dedicated to Jewish burials that follows traditional conservative Jewish burial customs. The plaintiffs say that by creating a dedicated Jewish section, the cemetery represented to consumers that it would accommodate and respect Jewish funeral practices. Moreover, Arizona Administrative Code sections R4-12-301 and R4-12-302 require funeral service providers to “abstain from conduct that could disrupt funeral services or cause injury to the decedent’s family; and make reasonable efforts to cooperate with religious customs of the decedent’s family.” The plaintiffs bring actions under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith. They ask a state judge to declare the policy illegal and order the cemetery to revoke it. They also request damages for the time and money they’ve spent on legal and religious counsel. Paradise Memorial Gardens did not respond to a request for comment. [GN] PHARMAVITE LLC: ADA Suit Settlement Objection Deadline Set Aug 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that blind individuals or those who have a visual disability and use assistive technology to access health and wellness websites may benefit from a class action settlement. Pharmavite LLC, FoodState Inc., Pharmavite Direct LLC and Bonafide Health LLC agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging they failed to make their websites accessible to individuals who are blind or have a visual disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar laws. Who are the class members? The settlement class includes all residents of the United States and its territories who: -- Are blind and/or have a visual disability (defined as an impairment that substantially limits the major life activity of seeing AND -- Use appropriate auxiliary aids and services (such as screen readers or other assistive technology) to navigate digital content AND -- Accessed, attempted to access, were deterred from accessing or will access, attempt to access or be deterred from accessing any of the following websites from within the United States: -- www.pharmavite.com -- www.uqora.com -- www.equelle.com -- www.naturemade.com -- www.megafood.com -- www.hellobonafide.com Class members do not need to have made a purchase. What benefits can class members receive? The settlement does not provide direct cash payments to class members. Instead, the defendant companies agreed to make their websites accessible in accordance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Levels A and AA. Class members do not need to file a claim or submit any documentation to benefit from this settlement. Pharmavite LLC, FoodState Inc., Pharmavite Direct LLC and Bonafide Health LLC will automatically implement accessibility improvements for all covered websites. Class members who have questions or need more information can contact class counsel: East End Trial Group LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 412-877-5220 eastendtrialgroup.com Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund includes: -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $69,000 for work performed up to the deadline for accessibility improvements -- Additional attorneys' fees: Up to $15,000 per year for up to two years if the companies do not achieve accessibility by the deadline -- Incentive award to named plaintiff: $2,500 Important dates -- Objection deadline: Aug. 13, 2026 -- Final fairness hearing: Sept. 29, 2026 Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Pharmavite LLC and related companies failed to make their websites accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired in violation of the ADA and similar laws. The lawsuit claimed the companies did not have adequate policies and practices to ensure accessibility for users who rely on assistive technology. The companies denied any wrongdoing or liability but agreed to settle the case to avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation. [GN] PROFESSIONAL ORTHOPEDIC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LYNDZIE PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROFESSIONAL ORTHOPEDIC AND SPORTS PHYSICAL THERAPY, P.C.; and SPORTS PHYSICAL THERAPY, OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY AND REHABILITATION SERVICES OF THE NORTH SHORE, P.L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03117 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2026) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite legal and ethical duties to maintain confidentiality, the Defendants instead secretly intercept and disclose Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential health information to third parties. In doing so, the Defendants undermine the importance of safeguarding the identities and personal medical information of individuals seeking physical therapy. Moreover, it breaches the trust of their own patients and Defendants' conduct violates state and federal law, says the suit. Professional Orthopedic and Sports Physical Therapy, P.C. operates as a health care center. The Center provides pain management, physical therapies, recovery, athletic training and sports medicine, rehabilitation, and specialty services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com RB HEALTH: Faces False Advertising Suit Over Airborne Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Yalinda Robinson filed a class action lawsuit against RB Health (US) LLC. Why: Robinson alleges the company misleads consumers about the vitamin C dosage in its Airborne products. Where: The Airborne class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges RB Health misleads consumers about the vitamin C dosage in its Airborne products. Plaintiff Yalinda Robinson filed the class action complaint against RB Health on May 2 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the class action lawsuit, RB Health falsely advertises the dosage of vitamin C in its Airborne Immune Support Gummies and other supplements, leading consumers to believe they are getting more of the nutrient than they actually are. The lawsuit alleges that the front labels of Airborne products prominently display a certain dosage amount of vitamin C, such as “VITAMIN C 1,000 MG,” leading consumers to believe that each chewable tablet, gummy or effervescent tablet contains the advertised dosage amount. However, the Airborne class action lawsuit claims that each chewable tablet, gummy or effervescent tablet contains only a fraction of the advertised dosage, and consumers must ingest two or more tablets to achieve the advertised dosage. RB Health charges premium for products with less vitamin C, class action alleges Robinson alleges that as a result of the deceptive labeling, consumers overpay for the products, receiving only a fraction of the advertised value while paying the full purchase price. The plaintiff says she read and relied upon RB Health's advertising when purchasing one or more of the Airborne products and was damaged as a result. The Airborne class action lawsuit seeks to represent a class of California consumers who purchased Airborne products with misleading dosage representations. The lawsuit alleges violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. Robinson is demanding a jury trial and is seeking an order compelling RB Health to cease marketing the products using misleading tactics, destroy all misleading materials, conduct a corrective advertising campaign, restore the amounts by which it has been unjustly enriched and pay restitution and punitive damages. Earlier this year, Unilever faced a class action lawsuit alleging it falsely advertises its SmartyPants children's vitamins as containing the same fiber content as certain fruits and vegetables. The plaintiff is represented by Levi M. Plesset of the Law Office of Levi M. Plesset and David A. Baldwin of the Law Office of David Baldwin. The Airborne class action lawsuit is Robinson v. RB Health (US) LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-04765, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] REDFIN CORP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sharing User's Data ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Biljana Gallardo filed a class action lawsuit against Redfin Corp. Why: Gallardo alleges Redfin secretly shared users' video-viewing history and mortgage application data with Meta and TikTok. Where: The Redfin class action was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Redfin Corp. of secretly transmitting users' private video-viewing activity and sensitive financial information to Meta and TikTok without their consent. Plaintiff Biljana Gallardo claims Redfin embedded invisible tracking code on its website to intercept and redirect this data to the social media companies. "Unbeknownst to the plaintiff and the millions of consumers who use the website, Redfin has embedded invisible tracking code known as the 'Meta Pixel' and the 'TikTok Pixel' on the website," the Redfin class action lawsuit alleges. The complaint alleges that each time a user clicks the "Video" button on a property listing, the Meta pixel transmits a tracking event to Facebook containing the user's unencrypted Facebook ID, the property listing URL and a hashed phone number. The TikTok pixel simultaneously sends a separate event to TikTok containing the property URL, along with hashed versions of the user's phone number and email address. Gallardo argues Redfin acted knowingly because it deliberately installed both pixels, activated "Advanced Matching" -- a feature that scans form fields for personal data -- and entered into commercial relationships with Meta and TikTok built on these very disclosures. She contends neither she nor any class member was ever presented a standalone consent form authorizing Redfin to share their video-viewing history or survey responses with any third party. Redfin class action: pixels let anyone identify users by name from home-search data The class action lawsuit further alleges that users' unencrypted Facebook IDs were transmitted as part of every video-viewing event. Unlike hashed identifiers, an unencrypted Facebook ID allows any ordinary person -- not just Meta -- to identify a Redfin user by name simply by entering the value into a web browser, according to the complaint. The lawsuit also claims Redfin's mortgage pre-qualification survey transmitted users' credit score ranges, home purchase timelines and property preferences to both platforms in real time -- data Congress has specifically classified as "nonpublic personal information" under federal privacy law. The Redfin class action lawsuit contends this enabled Meta and TikTok to target Redfin's own consumers with advertising based on their home-search activity and financial profiles. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory and punitive damages for herself and all class members. In other concerns about data privacy, footwear and clothing company Zappos is accused of secretly allowing Meta to eavesdrop on customers' online shopping activity using embedded tracking technologies. Gallardo is represented by Stefan Bogdanovich of Bursor & Fisher P.A. The Redfin class action lawsuit is Gallardo v. Redfin Corporation, Case No. 8:26-cv-00983, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. [GN] REMEDIAL TRANSPORTATION: Phillips Files Labor Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Remedial Transportation Services, Inc. The case is captioned as WILLIAM GARY PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. REMEDIAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 26CUB01863 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., May 12, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for employment violations. Remedial Transportation Services, Inc. is a family-owned company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jenny Dione Baysinger, Esq. MAYALL HURLEY PC 112 S. Church St. Lodi, CA 95240 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 Email: jbaysinger@mayallaw.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces Braun Suit Over ERISA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK BRAUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.; THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1–20, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03511-JJT (D. Ariz., May 19, 2026) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants impose discriminatory and punitive health insurance surcharges on employees who use tobacco products without making available a reasonable alternative standard to avoid those surcharges. Republic Services, Inc. provides waste management services. The Company offers landfill, recycling, solid, and bulk waste disposal. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samantha A. Caputo, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 11201 N. Tatum Boulevard Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85028 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: scaputo@sirillp.com RICOH USA: Seeks to Strike Phillips' Declaration ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICOH, USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on July 13, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., will move for entry of an order to strike the declaration of G. Michael Phillips, Ph.D. pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and L.R. 7-4. The Motion is made following the conference of counsel, pursuant to section 5(b) of the Court's Standing Order, and L.R. 7-3, which took place on May 4, 2026. Ricoh is an information management and digital services company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A17evs at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Deanna J. Lucci, Esq. Betty Luu, Esq. Taylor A. Stewart, Esq. Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Brian A. Mcaleenan, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-7442 Facsimile: (213) 403-6511 E-mail: JARiley@duanemorris.com DJLucci@duanemorris.com BLuu@duanemorris.com TStewart@duanemorris.com GMaatman@duanemorris.com BAMcaleenan@duanemorris.com ROBERT BOSCH: Daniel's Heating & Cooling Alleges HVAC Price-Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel's Heating & Cooling Co., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT BOSCH LLC, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, JC RESIDENTIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL LLC, JOHNSON CONTROLS HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING NORTH AMERICA LLC, TRANE TECHNOLOGIES PLC, TRANE U.S. INC., MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC TRANE HVAC US, CARRIER GLOBAL CORP., VIESSMANN MANUFACTURING CO. (U.S.), INC., DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD., DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, DAIKIN APPLIED AMERICAS, THERMALNETICS, LLC, LENNOX INTERNATIONAL, INC., LENNOX INDUSTRIES INC., ALLIED AIR ENTERPRISES LLC, RHEEM MANUFACTURING CO., AAON, INC., a Nevada Corporation, AAON, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation, AAON COIL PRODUCTS, INC., and BASX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-11633-FKB-EAS (E.D. Mich., May 19, 2026), alleges that the Defendants have conspired to drive the prices of HVAC Equipment to historic levels. The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendants used the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, a trade association for the HVAC industry to implement extensive sharing of information available only to AHRI members who also agreed to share their own data with their competitors. In addition, Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants used a niche HVAC industry publication, AirConditioning, Heating & Refrigeration News, to each announce their price increases to and provide commentary on their pricing and supply plans. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Headquartered in Farmington Hills, MI, Robert Bosch LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Robert Bosch GmbH, which manufactures and markets HVAC Equipment under several different brands and product lines, including Bosch, York, Champion, Coleman IVT, Luxaire, Hitachi, TempMaster, Guardian, and others. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard G. Mack Jr., Esq. Jeff DeLaunay, Esq. MILLER COHEN, PLC JUSTICE FOR WORKING PEOPLE 7700 Second Avenue, Suite 335 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (313) 566-4787 Facsimile: (313) 964-4490 E-mail: richardmack@millercohen.com jdelaunay@millercohen.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Ronnie Spiegel, Esq. Ivy Arai Tabbara, Esq. Drew M. Morgan, Esq. SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 550 California Street, Suite 910 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com rspiegel@saverilawfirm.com ROOT TECHNOLOGY: Adinolfi Sues Over Defective Bottle Sterilizer --------------------------------------------------------------- MEGAN ADINOLFI; and DANIELLE TORO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROOT TECHNOLOGY LTD. d/b/a MOMCOZY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02965 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2026) manufactures, markets, distributes, sells, the defective KleanPal Pro Bottle Washer and Sterilizer (the "KleanPal Pro"). The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint, KleanPal Pro is a dangerously defective kitchen countertop appliance manufactured in China and sold throughout the United States as a washer, sterilizer, dryer, and storage combination product for baby bottles and accessories like pacifiers, sippy cups, and baby tableware. Contrary to Momcozy's marketing of the KleanPal Pro as safe and suitable for its intended purpose, including steam sterilization, the KleanPal Pro's internal plastic components ("Internal Components") are made of materials incapable of withstanding the temperatures required for the KleanPal Pro to perform its essential functions, including cleaning and steam sterilization of baby products and accessories, the suit alleges. Root Technology Ltd. d/b/a Momcozy offers technology services. The Company provides cloud and virtualization services. Roots Technologies provides its services throughout Hong Kong. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell Busch, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 11 Park Place, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (630) 926-7948 Email: rbusch@brysonpllc.com - and - Rachel L. Soffin, Esq. Kelsey Gatlin Davies, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP Mailing Address: 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 Email: rsoffin@pwfirm.com kdavies@pwfirm.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 Email: nsuciu@brysonpllc.com - and - Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 810-7047 Email: tkashima@brysonpllc.com SAIA INC: Mills Bid for Class Certification Due June 15, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER MILLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAIA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-05033-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule as follows: Deadline to join additional parties and Sept. 14, 2026 to amend pleadings: Phase one discovery related to class April 2, 2027 certification cut off: The Plaintiff's disclosure of experts April 9, 2027 related to class certification: The Defendant's disclosure of experts April 9, 2027 related to class certification: Deadline to complete expert depositions: April 23, 2027 The Plaintiff's motion for class June 15, 2027 certification due by: The Defendant's opposition to motion for June 23, 2027 class certification due by: Hearing on motion for class certification: To be set by the Court The Defendant is an American less than truckload trucking company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jp1xrk at no extra charge.[CC] SENTINEL ONE: Faces Class and Derivative Actions ------------------------------------------------ SentinelOne, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2026, that is facing litigations about its disclosures with the SEC. On June 6, 2023, a securities class action was filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned "Johansson v. SentinelOne, Inc.," Case No. 4:23-cv-02786. The suit is brought on behalf of an alleged class of stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of the company's Class A common stock between June 1, 2022 and June 1, 2023. The complaint alleged that defendants made false or misleading statements about the company's business, operations and prospects, including its annual recurring revenues and internal controls. The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A substantially similar suit was filed on June 16, 2023, in the same court against the same defendants, asserting the same claims. This later-filed action is captioned "Nyren v. SentinelOne, Inc.," Case No. [number not provided in the disclosure]. In addition, on March 21, 2024, a putative shareholder derivative action was filed in the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of the company, against certain of its current and former officers and directors. It alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on substantially similar facts and circumstances as those alleged in the pending securities class actions. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, damages purportedly sustained by the Company, corporate governance reforms, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to the plaintiffs' counsel. SentinelOne, Inc. is a cybersecurity company that provides artificial intelligence-driven endpoint, cloud, and identity protection solutions to enterprises worldwide. The company is headquartered in Mountain View, California. SIG SAUER: Faces Altman Suit Over Defective P320 Pistol ------------------------------------------------------- SEAN ALTMAN and CHRISTIAN RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SIG SAUER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03862-MCR-ZCB (N.D. Fla., May 20, 2026) alleges violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant designed the P320 without any external (i.e., manually operated) safety features, even though the pistol is effectively cocked (i.e., ready to fire) the moment a round is chambered. This is particularly galling because the P320 also has among the lightest and shortest trigger pulls of any comparable pistol on the market. The practical effect is that when consumers carry a loaded P320, it is akin to the consumer taking a loaded revolver, pulling the hammer back, and then walking around with that cocked pistol in the holster -- all without any external safety features. As set forth herein, the combination of these features constitutes the Defect that uniformly exists in every P320, says the suit. Sig Sauer, Inc. designs and manufactures firearms for military, law enforcement, and commercial markets. The Company offers pistols, rifles, short barrel rifles, and firearms accessories. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Clinton J. Mann, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7110 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 Email: matt@williamsdirks.com cmann@williamsdirks.com - and - Bradford B. Lear, Esq. Todd C. Werts, Esq. Sander C. Sowers, Esq. LEAR WERTS LLP 103 Ripley Street Columbia, Missouri 65201 Telephone: (573) 875-1991 Facsimile: (573) 279-0024 Email: lear@learwerts.com werts@learwerts.com sowers@learwerts.com SIVERS SEMICONDUCTORS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Sivers Semiconductors AB (OTC: SIVEF) resulting from allegations that Sivers Semiconductors may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Sivers Semiconductors securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/sivers-semiconductors-ab/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On June 1, 2026, Ningi Research published a report entitled "Sivers Semiconductors (SIVE.ST): Dubious Revenue Accounting, Hollow Customer Contracts, and Broken Promises of an Imminent Volume Ramp-up Since 2018." The report stated that Ningi had taken a short position in Sivers securities because the company is, in Ningi Research's opinion, "a retail-driven pump built on speculative hyperscaler relationships, a fabricated bottleneck narrative, a rumored volume ramp-up, a delayed US listing, and a vague “opportunity pipeline” has driven a 1,800%+ YTD rally." On this news, Sivers' OTC-listed securities fell 9.2% on June 1, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SNOWFLAKE INC: Smith Sues Over Drop in Share Price -------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNOWFLAKE, INC.; FRANK SLOOTMAN; and MICHAEL P. SCARPELLI, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-04869 (N.D. Cal., May 22, 2026) alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that during the Class Period, instead of frankly disclosing customers' unpreparedness when it raised the issue of customer security, Snowflake misleadingly downplayed the matter by simply stating the customer was (in its view) solely responsible for access security. Snowflake did not reveal that major customers were unable to handle that responsibility, or that Snowflake's systems actually impeded the adoption by customers of certain key security measures. By June 10, 2024, Snowflake stock had fallen to $126.76 on high trading volume, with breach-related disclosures largely responsible for driving the price down as revelations jolted the market little by little, eroding the stock price from its initial value of $154.58 on May 23, 2024, says the suit. Snowflake Inc. provides software solutions. The Company develops database architecture, data warehouses, query optimization, and parallelization solutions. Snowflake serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David N. Lake, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE A Professional Corporation 16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 788-5100 Facsimile: (818) 479-9990 Email: david@lakelawpc.com SYNGENTA CROP: Adams Sues Over Toxic Paraquat Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------- TOMMY B. ADAMS and LISA ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC; and CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. N26C-05-178-PQT (Del. Sup., May 19, 2026) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC provides crop protection chemical products and agricultural services. The Company produces fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and seed care treatments, as well as farm management, seeds, and research and development services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th St. Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: Raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 40 Westminster Street, 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 457-7728 Facsimile: (401) 457-7708 Email: ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com TAYLOR MORRISON: M&A Investigates Sale to Berkshire Hathaway ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Taylor Morrison Home Corp. (NYSE: TMHC) related to its sale to Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Taylor Morrison shareholders are expected to receive $72.50 per share in cash. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/taylor-morrison-home-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] TESLA INC: Faces False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit in China ---------------------------------------------------------------- AASTOCKS reports that A class action lawsuit targeting the Full Self-Driving (FSD) function of Tesla, Inc. (TSLA.US) has been heard in the first instance at the Daxing District Peoples' Court in Beijing, Chinese media reported. Ten Chinese vehicle owners have filed a lawsuit against Tesla, alleging false advertising and consumer fraud, seeking compensation of more than RMB3.95 million. According to the plaintiffs' legal representative, Tesla was aware that the promoted FSD function had not obtained approval from Chinese regulators and was unable to deliver the core functions described in its marketing materials. The lawyer also alleged that Tesla concealed hardware technical defects and engaged in misleading promotion to induce purchases, arguing that such conduct meets the legal criteria for fraud.[GN] TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Antitrust Class Suit for $35-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. has agreed to pay $35 million to resolve claims it engaged in antitrust behavior to keep its QVAR asthma medications from facing generic competition. The QVAR class action settlement benefits consumers and entities who purchased or reimbursed some or all of the purchase price for QVAR or QVAR Redihaler products between Jan. 1, 2015, and July 31, 2025. States included in the QVAR settlement are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. QVAR and QVAR Redihaler are brand-name asthma medications manufactured by Teva Pharmaceuticals. The medication is a corticosteroid that helps prevent asthma attacks. The class action lawsuit resolved by this settlement claimed Teva Pharmaceuticals violated antitrust laws by preventing generic versions of QVAR from being sold to consumers. The company allegedly took several steps to keep its medication from facing generic competition, including product hops, sham litigation, improper patent listings and reverse payments. As a result of these alleged actions, consumers claim they paid a higher price for QVAR products, such as Redihaler, than they would have in a competitive market. Teva has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $35 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the QVAR settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount they paid for QVAR products. Class members who have proof of purchase for QVAR products can receive a larger share of the net settlement fund. Class members without proof of purchase will receive a smaller share of the net settlement fund. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 15, 2026. The final approval hearing for the QVAR settlement is scheduled for Aug. 05, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 31, 2026. Who's Eligible The QVAR class action settlement benefits consumers and entities who purchased or reimbursed some or all of the purchase price for QVAR or QVAR Redihaler products between Jan. 1, 2015, and July 31, 2025, in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Documentation can include receipts, invoices, pharmacy statements or records, or insurance statements with explanations of benefits. 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 07/31/2026 Case Name Iron Workers District Council of New England Health and Welfare Fund, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-11131-NMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Final Hearing 08/05/2026 Settlement Website QVARAntiTrustSettlement.com Claims Administrator QVAR Antitrust Settlement c/o A.B. Data Ltd. P.O. Box 173034 Milwaukee, WI 53217 (866) 588-8524 info@QVARAntitrustSettlement.com Class Counsel Todd A. Seaver BERMAN TABACCO Joseph M. Vanek SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER LLC Steve D. Shadowen HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP Thomas M. Sobol Gregory T. Arnold HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Defense Counsel Devora W. Allon KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP [GN] TEXAS W W SOUTH: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEXAS W W SOUTH SIDE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05862 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.vaccariboots.com is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Texas W W South Side, LLC is in the industry of clothing and clothing accessories retailers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law THEMAGIC5 INC: Barlow Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL BARLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Themagic5 Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05966 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://themagic5.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Themagic5 Inc. specializes in custom-fit swimming goggles tailored to the unique contours of individual faces using advanced facial scanning technology. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law THOMPSON METAL: Class Cert Bid in Hutchinson Suit Due Nov. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hutchinson v. Thompson Metal Fab Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-05060 (W.D. Wash., Filed Jan. 21, 2026), the Hon. Judge Benjamin H. Settle entered an order granting joint status report. -- Motion for Class Certification due by Nov. 5, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Thompson is a construction services company located in Vancouver, WA, available for a variety of services and project types.[CC] THRIVEWORKS ADMINISTRATIVE: Agrees to Settle Privacy Suit for $1.9M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Thriveworks Administrative Services, LLC and Thriveworks, Inc. have agreed to a $1,900,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the online mental health platform surreptitiously shared patients' sensitive information with Google and LinkedIn without express consent. The $1.9 million Thriveworks class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 22, 2026. The deal covers all Thriveworks patients in the United States who accessed their patient portal from April 25, 2023 through September 5, 2025. The court-approved website for the Thriveworks class action settlement can be found at ThriveworksPrivacySettlement.com. Thriveworks settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive a cash payment of up to $10. To file a Thriveworks settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN listed on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Thriveworks settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by July 21, 2026. In addition to monetary relief, Thriveworks has also agreed to review and reconfigure its website to prevent the collection of patient medical information without consent. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Thriveworks privacy settlement following a hearing on August 4, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Thriveworks class action lawsuit alleged that the online mental health platform failed to obtain patients' consent before sharing their private data with third parties, namely Google and LinkedIn, in alleged violation of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Florida's Security of Communications Act. [GN] TOTAL SYSTEM: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARGARET RODRIGUEZ and MOSSIE WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00809-CDL (M.D. Ga., May 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about May 2, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Total System Services, LLC is a financial technology company based in Columbus, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4472 Email: dwirth@alonsowirth.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Panida Anderson, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over 8-Speed Automatic Failures --------------------------------------------------------------- Denis Flierl, writing for Torque News, reports that the baseline promise of automotive quality relies on statistical predictability, yet real-world mechanical telemetry continues to break factory failure models. In our ongoing coverage of Toyota reliability, Torque News Senior Reporter Denis Flierl has uncovered an unresolved dispute over the structural integrity of the powertrain in the automaker's latest midsize truck. Specifically, the redesigned fourth-generation Toyota Tacoma is facing intense scrutiny as premature failures of its 8-speed automatic transmission trigger widespread owner outrage, dealer diagnostic gridlock, and escalating legal action. What was supposed to be a triumph of downsized, high-efficiency engineering is rapidly devolving into a systemic hardware crisis. Across North America, owners of brand-new 2024 through 2026 Tacomas report their trucks suddenly dropping into "Limp Mode" at highway speeds, leaving them stranded without propulsion. According to legal data compiled by automotive consumer advocates at The Lemon Law Experts, "The 2025 Toyota Tacoma's recurring problems, particularly with transmission, driveline, and critical safety systems," are mounting rapidly as federal oversight portals register unprecedented spikes in severe, low-mileage powertrain defects. From Financial Illusion to Mechanical Nightmare This burgeoning reliability crisis directly fuels an aggressive, orchestrated push inside dealership showrooms. In our ongoing coverage of Toyota reliability, Torque News Senior Reporter Denis Flierl has uncovered an unresolved dispute over how dealerships are exploiting high 3rd-Gen resale metrics to mask emerging 4th-Gen engineering vulnerabilities. As outlined in our foundational investigation, "Why Trading a 2023 Toyota Tacoma for a $279/Month 2026 SR5 Lease is a Financial Trap," aggressive marketing campaigns are tempting owners with ultra-low monthly payments. However, this shiny $279 offer functions as a structural trap designed to strip owners of their equity while binding them to an unproven, turbocharged four-cylinder powertrain married to a volatile transmission control system. The leverage point for dealerships rests entirely on the bulletproof reputation of the previous generation. Dealerships are highly aware that the market is starved for traditional, naturally aspirated engineering. As detailed in our secondary coverage stream, "Toyota Dealers Are Begging for Your 2023 V6 Tacoma -- Here Is the 3-Step Strategy to Flawlessly Flip Their 'Trap' Into a $5,000 Windfall," sales managers are aggressively pursuing clean, low-mileage 3rd-Gen trade-ins because their residual values remain at an unprecedented high. Consumers who fall for the dealer's pitch aren't just losing thousands in real-world equity; they are unwittingly transferring their financial security from an analog, rock-solid platform straight into the crosshairs of a major manufacturing defect. The "Take-Dump" Fluid Dynamics: Why New Gearboxes Are Slipping At the heart of this investigative stream is a severe mechanical and hydraulic vulnerability. While modern automatic transmissions utilize adaptive learning algorithms to adjust internal line pressures over time, proprietary Torque News tracking of manufacturing defects indicates that early 4th-Gen models are frequently experiencing clear mechanical irregularities. These symptoms present as severe 1st- to 3rd-gear jerking, sudden RPM "hunting" between 2,000 and 4,000 RPM, or an alarming sensation of a slipping torque converter during cold drive cycles. Torque News technical analysis by Denis Flierl identifies a critical gap between factory maintenance schedules and real-world component longevity. Forensic teardowns from independent service bays reveal that a flawed transmission control solenoid design is causing catastrophic gear slippage within the first 10,000 miles. When these micro-solenoids fail to maintain precise hydraulic pressure, the internal clutch packs fail to lock securely. This results in severe friction, exponential thermal spikes, and an accumulation of non-ferrous clutch debris that rapidly contaminates the fluid channel. The consequences are immediate. Industry analysts tracking these premature failures have noted a pattern in which electronic control modules detect the hydraulic pressure loss, triggering an instantaneous hard fault code. According to ongoing research published by independent automotive data providers at Lemberg Law, "Owners most often reported harsh transmission shifting, front axle or drive shaft failures, unstable steering and suspension concerns," underscoring that the mechanical infrastructure is struggling to manage the high-torque output of the new i-FORCE turbocharged powerplants. Parallels to the Tundra Crisis This transmission bottleneck is part of a broader, multi-platform durability paradox currently affecting Toyota's truck lineup. A critical gap identified in Torque News technical analysis by Denis Flierl explains the subsequent loss of advanced multi-speed automatic gearboxes when paired with high-output forced induction: when a powertrain architecture undergoes sudden, high-stress fluctuations under load, the drivetrain's kinetic energy forces the torque converter lockup clutch and planetary gear sets to absorb massive shock loads. As documented in a separate long-term powertrain assessment by Denis Flierl, 22,000 Miles, 2 Engines, 1 Transmission: Why a 2024 Toyota Tundra Owner Still Praises the Tundra and Twin-Turbo V6, early-release full-size truck platforms are suffering from compound, recurring powertrain degradation. In that specific independent field analysis, an owner experienced a complete transmission swap alongside multiple engine replacements before the vehicle reached mid-life mileage thresholds. This multi-layered component collapse proves that factory containment windows have systematically underestimated real-world stress loads. Furthermore, as outlined in a concurrent investigative report, The 2026 Toyota Tundra V6 Engine Crisis: Understanding the Debris Threat and Your Practical Blueprint for Survival, "According to ongoing Torque News by Denis Flierl tracking of manufacturing defects, Toyota's systemic engine contamination issue has officially breached the 2026 model year." This shared vulnerability demonstrates that the tight tolerances required by modern electronic controls leave zero margin for component variances or fluid contamination. Regional Terrains and the Colorado Multiplier This mechanical risk scales exponentially under demanding geographic conditions. As a third-generation Colorado native reporting from Parker, Colorado, I regularly utilize the Rocky Mountains' high-altitude terrain as a rigorous, real-world testing ground. Climbing steep mountain passes like the Eisenhower Tunnel or tackling high-altitude off-road trails places an immense thermal burden on a vehicle's cooling and hydraulic systems. On a technical, steep descent where precision is everything, a transmission control module that locks an owner out of manual gear selection forces a hazardous choice. Drivers are stuck with a computer that hunts for the right gear, generating massive friction-based heat. When a truck is operated at high-range ratios under heavy loads in these thin-air environments, the internal fluid easily exceeds its safe operating zone of 200°F. This thermal saturation accelerates solenoid degradation, rendering the 8-speed unit highly vulnerable to catastrophic pressure failure on regional highways. The Blueprint: Navigating Factory "Diagnostic Limbo" For owners currently facing harsh shifting, gear slippage, or complete loss of highway power, escaping the dealership "diagnostic limbo" requires a calculated, aggressive strategy. Because many service centers initially dismiss these symptoms as normal "adaptive learning behavior," consumers must establish an unassailable paper trail. 1. Document and Log Technical Telemetry Immediate: At the first sign of harsh shifting, gear hunting, or slippage, log the exact mileage, ambient temperature, and driving conditions. If the truck enters "Limp Mode," safely pull over and record video of the dashboard warning cluster. 2. Demand a Comprehensive OBD-II Diagnostic Scan At Dealership: Do not accept a simple software reset. Insist that the service technician perform a full electronic diagnostic scan to check for stored Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) related to hydraulic line pressure or solenoid circuit faults. Demand a printed copy of the master tech data stream. 3. Request a Forensic Transmission Fluid Analysis Before Repair: Instruct the service drive to pull a fluid sample. The presence of non-ferrous metallic flakes or a distinct burnt odor is conclusive evidence of internal clutch delamination and hardware failure, legally invalidating any claims that the issue is merely a software glitch. 4. Enforce Powertrain Warranty and File Oversight Reports Final Step: If hardware failure is verified, demand a full, manufacturer-funded gearbox replacement under the 5-year/60,000-mile powertrain warranty. Simultaneously, log your vehicle's failure with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to ensure your data is integrated into the ongoing nationwide class action matrix. Consumer Warning: Continuing to operate a vehicle once the transmission control module has initiated a hard hydraulic fault can cause severe downstream mechanical damage to the transfer case and driveshafts, complicating your warranty claim or potential lemon law buyback. This nationwide class action push underscores a fundamental truth: a truck's marketing campaign can never replace field-verified mechanical longevity. As a dedicated consumer watchdog, Torque News will continue to track this escalating 4th-Gen transmission crisis from the front lines of the service bays. What Would You Do? Have you experienced severe gear hunting, harsh shifting, or an alarming highway "Limp Mode" event in your new 4th-Generation Tacoma? Are local dealerships honoring your warranty, or are they hiding behind the "adaptive learning" excuse? [GN] TRANE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over HVAC Equipment Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------- TRUE HEATING AND COOLING LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANE TECHNOLOGIES PLC; TRANE U.S. INC.; MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC TRANE HVAC US LLC; LENNOX INTERNATIONAL INC.; LENNOX INDUSTRIES INC.; ALLIED AIR ENTERPRISES LLC; CARRIER GLOBAL CORP.; VIESSMANN MANUFACTURING CO. (U.S.), INC.; RHEEM MANUFACTURING CO.; DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD.; DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, INC.; DAIKIN APPLIED AMERICAS INC.; DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTION, INC.; THERMALNETICS, LLC; ROBERT BOSCH LLC; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; BHC RESIDENTIAL & LIGHT COMMERCIAL LLC; BOSCH HOME COMFORT LLC; AAON, INC.; AAON, INC.; AAON COIL PRODUCTS, INC.; and BASX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-11685-FKB-CI (E.D. Mich., May 22, 2026) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, beginning no later than January 2020, these Defendants conspired to inflate the prices of HVAC Equipment sold throughout the United States. The Defendants employed veiled language -- using terms like "discipline" and "price realization" and speaking of maintaining margins as a priority over competing for market share -- to conceal the conspiracy's existence while simultaneously accomplishing its goals and reassuring co-conspirators of their continued commitment to the anticompetitive agreement. The Defendants' means of effectuating the conspiracy -- including price signaling, information sharing, production signaling, and in-person meetings -- demonstrate that Defendants actively sought to prevent Plaintiff and members of the Class from discovering the conspiracy, alleges the suit. Trane Technologies Public Limited Company manufactures industrial equipment. The Company offers central heaters, air conditioners, electric vehicles, air cleaners, and fluid handling products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul F. Novak, Esq. Diana Gjonaj, Esq. Michael P. Piggins, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C. The Fisher Building 3011 W. Grand Boulevard, Floor 24 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (313) 800-4170 Email: pnovak@weitzlux.com dgjonaj@weitzlux.com mpiggins@weitzlux.com - and - Patrick McGahan, Esq. Michael Srodoski, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 Email: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com msrodoski@scott-scott.com - and - Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Fatima Brizuela, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6443 Email: kgarvey@scott-scott.com fbrizuela@scott-scott.com - and - Patrick Coughlin, Esq. Carmen Medici, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-5325 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 Email: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com cmedici@scott-scott.com Jennifer W. Sprengel - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Kaitlin Naughton, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-4882 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 Email: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com dherrera@caffertyclobes.com knaughton@caffertyclobes.com TRANE TECHNOLOGIES: Reliance Sues Over HVAC Equipment Conspiracy ---------------------------------------------------------------- RELIANCE HEATING AND COOLING, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANE TECHNOLOGIES PLC; TRANE U.S. INC.; MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC TRANE HVAC US LLC; LENNOX INTERNATIONAL INC.; LENNOX INDUSTRIES INC.; ALLIED AIR ENTERPRISES LLC; CARRIER GLOBAL CORP.; VIESSMANN MANUFACTURING CO. (U.S.), INC.; RHEEM MANUFACTURING CO.; DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD.; DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, INC.; DAIKIN APPLIED AMERICAS INC.; DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTION, INC.; THERMALNETICS, LLC; ROBERT BOSCH LLC; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; BHC RESIDENTIAL & LIGHT COMMERCIAL LLC; BOSCH HOME COMFORT LLC; AAON, INC.; AAON, INC.; AAON COIL PRODUCTS, INC.; and BASX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-11683-TGB-KGA (E.D. Mich., May 22, 2026) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, beginning no later than January 2020, these Defendants conspired to inflate the prices of HVAC Equipment sold throughout the United States. The Defendants employed veiled language -- using terms like "discipline" and "price realization" and speaking of maintaining margins as a priority over competing for market share -- to conceal the conspiracy's existence while simultaneously accomplishing its goals and reassuring co-conspirators of their continued commitment to the anticompetitive agreement. The Defendants' means of effectuating the conspiracy -- including price signaling, information sharing, production signaling, and in-person meetings -- demonstrate that Defendants actively sought to prevent Plaintiff and members of the Class from discovering the conspiracy, says the suit. Trane Technologies Public Limited Company manufactures industrial equipment. The Company offers central heaters, air conditioners, electric vehicles, air cleaners, and fluid handling products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul F. Novak, Esq. Diana Gjonaj, Esq. Michael P. Piggins, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C. The Fisher Building 3011 W. Grand Boulevard, Floor 24 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (313) 800-4170 Email: pnovak@weitzlux.com dgjonaj@weitzlux.com mpiggins@weitzlux.com - and - Patrick McGahan, Esq. Michael Srodoski, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 Email: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com msrodoski@scott-scott.com - and - Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Fatima Brizuela, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6443 Email: kgarvey@scott-scott.com fbrizuela@scott-scott.com - and - Patrick Coughlin, Esq. Carmen Medici, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-5325 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 Email: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com cmedici@scott-scott.com Jennifer W. Sprengel - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Kaitlin Naughton, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-4882 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 Email: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com dherrera@caffertyclobes.com knaughton@caffertyclobes.com TRANSGLOBAL HOLDING: Cummings Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ NIYJALE CUMMINGS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSGLOBAL HOLDING COMPANY d/b/a TRANSGLOBAL INSURANCE AGENCY and TRANSGLOBAL INSURANCE AGENCY INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-05305 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2026) arises from Defendant's to protect highly sensitive data. On or around February 18, 2026, TransGlobal Insurance was hacked in the data breach. The Defendants already admitted that some of Plaintiff's personal information may have been subject to unauthorized access or acquisition. And yet, Defendants waited until April 16, 2026, before it began notifying the class, depriving the Plaintiff and the Class members of the opportunity to try and mitigate their injuries in a timely manner. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, violation of the California Customer Records Act, and declaratory judgment. Headquartered in Las Vegas, NV, Transglobal Holding Company offers insurance, investment, real estate, lending, and tax assistance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 2261 Market Street, Ste 22946 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com croman@straussborrelli.com TUFT & NEEDLE: Settles Misleading, Fake Sales Class Action for $3MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Tuft & Needle has agreed to a nearly $3 million settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit that alleged the mattress retailer misleadingly advertised on its website fake "limited time" sales based on purported regular prices at which the mattresses and bedding products were never actually sold. The $2,995,297.48 Tuft & Needle class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 16, 2026. The agreement covers all individuals who purchased one or more mattresses advertised at a discount on Tuft & Needle's website while in California at any time from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2024. Per court documents, settlement class members purchased approximately 40,147 Tuft & Needle mattresses advertised at a discount during the relevant time period. The court-approved website for the Tuft & Needle class action settlement can be found at TNPriceSettlement.com. Tuft & Needle settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive a cash payment or website credit in an amount equal to 45 percent of the discount that Tuft & Needle represented that they would receive on each mattress purchased from TuftandNeedle.com from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2024. The average cash payout or site credit for each class member will be roughly $75 per mattress purchase. Tuft & Needle website credits can be valid for three years after issuance and can be used at any time toward any purchase, with no restrictions. To submit a Tuft & Needle claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the notice ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Tuft & Needle claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than July 14, 2026. Class members who do not submit a claim form will automatically receive a website credit good for a purchase on TuftandNeedle.com in an amount equal to 45 percent of the promised discount from Tuft & Needle for a mattress purchased during the relevant time period. The court will determine whether to grant the Tuft & Needle settlement final approval following a hearing on July 10, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Tuft & Needle class action lawsuit alleged that the Arizona-based mattress company misleadingly advertised various discounts and "limited time" sales on mattress products on its website, in violation of California consumer protection law. [GN] UFP TECHNOLOGIES: Charlie Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralphie Charlie, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UFP Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-12249-DLC (D. Mass., May 18, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated customers' and employees' personally identifiable information and protected health information from criminal hackers. On or about February 14, 2026, an unauthorized individual accessed Defendant's network environment and stole private information, which included the theft of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. On February 19, 2026, the ransomware group, PayoutsKing, posted Defendant to its data leak site confirming the exfiltration and encryption of information in the data breach. However, there has been no assurance offered by Defendant that all personal data or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed, or that Defendant has adequately enhanced its data security practices sufficient to avoid a similar breach of its network in the future, says the suit. Headquartered in Newburyport, MA, UFP Technologies, Inc. manufactures single-use and single-patient medical devices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 265-5622 E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com thilton@sirillp.com UNITED HOMES: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against United Homes Group, Inc. ("United Homes" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:UHG). The class action concerns whether United Homes and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until June 9, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired United Homes securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On May 19, 2025, United Homes announced that its Board of Directors (the "Board") had "appointed a special committee comprised solely of independent directors and initiated a review of strategic alternatives in order to explore ways to maximize shareholder value" including "a sale of the Company, a sale of assets, and a refinancing of existing indebtedness, among others." Then, on October 20, 2025, United Homes announced that its Special Committee "unanimously" concluded that "continuing to execute on the Company's strategic plan as an independent, public company is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders at this time," and that the entire Board of Directors, except for United Homes Founder Michael Nieri, had resigned after Nieri did not agree to "fully empower" management to execute strategic plan, to resign as Executive Chairman, and to "forego any remaining cash compensation to which he would be entitled under his existing employment agreement". On this news, United Homes' stock price fell $2.23 per share, or 52.46%, to close at $2.03 per share on October 20, 2025. Then, on November 6, 2025, United Homes announced its financial results for the third fiscal quarter of 2025, disclosing discussions with various stakeholders concerning "the pressing need to identify replacement directors" and announcing quarterly revenue of $90.8 million, a decrease of 23% year over year. On this news, United Homes' stock price fell $0.11 per share, or 7.6%, to close at $1.34 per share on November 6, 2025. Then, on February 23, 2026, United Homes announced it agreed to be acquired by Stanley Martin Homes in an all-cash transaction of approximately $221 million, or $1.18 per share, which represented an over 50% discount on the last closing price preceding the announcement. On this news, United Homes' stock price fell $1.23 per share, or 51.68%, to close at $1.15 per share on February 23, 2026. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or (646) 581-9980, (or (888) 4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. [GN] UNITED STATES: Judge to Review $1.8BB Anti-Weaponization Fund ------------------------------------------------------------- Bobby Allyn, writing for OPB, reports that a federal judge will review the Trump administration's $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization fund" after a group of former federal judges questioned its legitimacy. The fund was established following Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Instead of going to trial, Trump administration lawyers and the president's personal legal team settled by agreeing to stand up the taxpayer-supported fund. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Florida on Friday, May 29, ordered Trump's lawyers to respond to the motion filed by 35 former federal judges who argued that Trump is in a sense both the plaintiff and the defendant in the case, having filed it as president and also the leader of the executive branch overseeing the IRS. Thus, the judges wrote, the lawsuit "is itself a fraud on the court." The former judges, appointed by both Democrat and Republican presidents, wrote that the lawsuit was used as a justification for the "looting" of American taxpayers. They described the case as a type of "collusion" between the president's lawyers and the federal government and asked the judge to re-open the case to determine the settlement only after the court was "deceived." Williams, appointed by former President Barack Obama, had initially granted a dismissal of Trump's lawsuit following the settlement, but, in light of the former judges' motion, she said the court is "empowered to investigate serious misconduct." It follows another judge in Virginia temporarily freezing the fund, which Trump officials have described as an effort to compensate Trump allies, Jan. 6 rioters and others the president says have been unjustly targeted. That judge, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia, ordered on Friday, May 29, that Trump officials stop setting up the pool of money to "ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed." Brinkema, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, set a June 12 hearing for arguments over whether the order should be extended. A Justice Department spokesperson did not respond to an NPR request for comment on Saturday, May 30. Justice Department officials said on social media, "We will do everything in our power to make whole those who were persecuted for political purposes." Legal expert: Fund 'doesn't address real legal injuries' Taken together, the orders are an early legal setback for the fund, which has caused divisions within the Capitol Hill, with critics describing it as a slush fund for Trump supporters who claim they were the victims of political persecution. Brinkema's order pausing it was the result of a lawsuit brought by former Justice Department lawyer Andrew Floyd and other plaintiffs, who argued that the nearly $2 billion was never approved by Congress and "rewards and incentivizes unlawful behavior and facilitates an astounding abuse of taxpayer funds." Legal experts have expressed particular alarm over the fund's lack of oversight, in addition to the bucket of money having no connection to the claims Trump alleged in his lawsuit against the IRS. Adam Zimmerman, a law professor at the University of Southern California, told NPR that past examples of mass compensation funds directed by the president, whether related to the Holocaust or the BP oil spill, resolved sprawling class-action lawsuits, which is not the case here. "All those cases involved identifiable injuries, to discrete groups of people, for violations of real laws, under neutrally applicable rules, often brokered in the shadow of a class action litigation or mass litigation," Zimmerman said. This fund, however, "doesn't address real legal injuries." "It offers money to an indeterminate group of people, who never threatened or commenced any kind of legal action," he said, describing it as "unlike anything we've seen in the history of the republic." [GN] UNITED STATES: Transgender Patients Sue Over Sharing Patient Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- Isabella Gallo of AMNY reports that transgender patients and their families are suing NYU Langone Hospital and the U.S. Department of Justice to halt a federal subpoena filed last month demanding patient records from all minors the health system has provided gender affirming care to since 2020 be turned over to the Trump administration. The suit demands Manhattan's federal court block the hospital from turning over the records, which would include the names of trans minors, their doctors and the medical care they received, arguing the subpoena violates patients' civil rights, state law prohibiting breaches of physician-patient privilege and is a "gross overreach of governmental power, founded on an improper purpose to 'end' gender-affirming medical care and cast transgender persons into the shadows." "The Subpoenas at issue here were not issued for a proper purpose, but, as part of the Administration's systematic campaign to exclude transgender people from public life and to 'end' the gender-affirming medical care that enables many transgender people to live authentically as themselves," says the suit, filed jointly by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and Lambda Legal. NYCLU and Lambda Legal allege the DOJ is insidiously using a subpoena filed from the Northern District of Texas to obtain trans patients' records after federal district courts across the country have limited the DOJ's ability to obtain such information via civil subpoenas, ruling they were issued for an improper purpose or violated the rights of the patients whose information they sought. "Faced with this wall of resistance to its discriminatory and improper aims, DOJ has now shifted tactics, purportedly moving the locus of its 'investigation' to the Northern District of Texas and relying on grand jury subpoenas to obtain the same information it was prohibited from obtaining through other means by multiple courts," the suit says. Trans advocates say question DOJ motives for record pursuit The advocacy groups say the Trump administration is simply using the May subpoena to carry out its political fight against gender affirming care, which it has made abundantly clear via public statements. "DOJ's aims are not to impartially enforce the law -- no federal law prohibits the provision of gender-affirming medical care to minors, which the U.S. Supreme Court has determined is for the states to regulate -- but rather to effectuate the Administration's policy priorities to 'end' the gender-affirming medical care, even if coercion is necessary," the suit says. The DOJ and NYU Langone did not respond to requests for comment on the suit or whether patient records had been turned over yet. The subpoena, filed May 6, gave the health system 30 days to inform patients before it would be legally required to send the records, a deadline that was only days away. New York Attorney General Letitia James declined to comment on the suit. When the subpoena was filed last month, she said after being asked for comment that the state had "strong protections in place to protect the privacy of patient records" and that "every health care institution in New York should seek to protect both patients and providers." Gender affirming care has a regret rate of less than 1%, lower than nearly all elective procedures, and has been shown to decrease the chances of trans youth committing suicide by 73%. Gender affirming care for trans youth requires parental consent and involves a significant amount of consultation, assessment and therapy before healthcare professionals begin prescribing procedures or hormone treatments. Gender affirming care for trans youth typically involves drugs known as puberty blockers, which stop a person from going through the puberty associated with their birth-assigned sex, and, in later teen years, hormonal replacement therapy, so they can move through the puberty aligned with their gender identity. Sex reassignment and breast modification surgeries are typically only available to people over the age of 18, but in rare cases, may be carried out when a person is 16 or 17 years old. "Plaintiffs [are] unwittingly caught in the crosshairs of that attack simply because they received medically necessary gender-affirming medical care here in New York City, near their homes in the New York City area, and with the expectation that their private medical records would remain private," the suit says. "This Court's intervention is necessary." [GN] UNIVERSITY OF OREGON: Schroeder Loses Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY SCHROEDER, KENDALL CLARK, et al., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF OREGON ("UO"), Case No. 6:23-cv-01806-MC (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge McShane entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to their Treatment and Benefits classes, Financial Aid damages class, and Effective Accommodation class. As previously stated, the Court will determine certification of a Financial Aid injunctive class following a ruling on the merits. Because the Beach Volleyball Plaintiffs are not typical of their proposed class members, certification of the Equal Treatment and Benefits classes is denied. Because the Plaintiffs do not convince this Court that class-wide resolution is superior to other methods of adjudicating the conflicts, the damages classes do not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) and certification is denied. The Rowing Plaintiffs fail to show by a preponderance of the evidence that they are members of their proposed class of students who are interested and capable of being on a varsity team. Moreover, the established record of the Rowing Plaintiffs' inability to compete on a varsity level subjects them to a unique defense that defeats typicality. Consequently, certification of the Effective Accommodation class is denied. The Plaintiffs allege that UO violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 by providing female students with unequal treatment and benefits, unequal financial aid, and fewer varsity athletic participation opportunities than those provided to male students. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following five classes: Count I: Equal Treatment and Benefits A class for declaratory and injunctive relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) of "all current and future female students who participate or will participate in intercollegiate varsity athletics at UO." A class for damages under Rule 23(b)(3) of "all current and former female students who participated or will participate in intercollegiate varsity athletics at UO at anytime from the start of the 2020–21 academic year until the end of the 2025–26 academic year." Count II: Equal Financial Aid A class for declaratory and injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) of "all current and future female students who participate or will participate in intercollegiate varsity athletics at UO and do not receive all athletic financial aid permissible under federal law." A class for damages under Rule 23(b)(3) of "all current and former female students who participated or participate in intercollegiate varsity athletics at UO and did not or do not receive all athletic financial aid permissible under federal law at any time from the start of the 2020–21 academic year until the end of the 2025– 26 academic year." Count III: Effective Accommodation A class for declaratory and injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) of "all present and future female students at UO who are being deprived of the opportunity to participate on women’s varsity intercollegiate athletic teams." The Plaintiffs include Halli Fields, Natasha George, Josie Griffiths, Jade Bernal, Dahlia Mcallister, Presley Mccaskill, Abigail Plevin, Valerie Peterson, Ella Tyus, Siulolovao Folau, Alex Laita, Batia Rotstein, Zoe Almanza, Beatrice Wetton, Mia Lopez, Delaney Hopen, Carly Wallace, Savannah Siegrist, Anastasia Lima, Madelyn Lafollette, Alexandra Haden, Josie Cole, Alaina Thomas, Vivian Donovan, Elise Haverland, River Ribeiro, Sophia Schmitz, Sydney Weddle, Claire Daley, And Anna Maria Knight. The Defendant is a public research university in Eugene, Oregon. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GUC4jC at no extra charge.[CC] US FOODS: Employees Sue Over Misappropriated 401(k) Forfeitures --------------------------------------------------------------- Caitlyn Rosen of Courthouse News Service reports that a group of US Foods Inc. employees filed a class action Thursday, May 28, after the company used 401(k) forfeitures to reduce its own plan contributions, and then tried to retroactively change the plan to skirt liability. In a 29-page complaint filed in the Northern District of Illinois, the class of employees says the food distribution company ignored its own retirement plan guidelines and used plan assets to offset employer contributions. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, retirement plans must have a written plan document. "That document is not advisory. It is the plan rulebook," the class wrote in the complaint. "It binds the fiduciaries who administer the plan, controls the use of plan assets, and protects participants' rights. A fiduciary's refusal or failure to follow the written plan document violates ERISA." When plan participants leave a company before fully vesting in employer contributions, they typically forfeit the nonvested portion of those funds. According to the complaint, US Foods' retirement plan "impose a simple hierarchy: forfeitures must be applied first to reduce [p]lan expenses; only after [p]lan expenses are paid in full may forfeitures be used to reduce US Foods' employer-contribution obligations." Instead of using those forfeitures to reduce plan expenses, however, US Foods used them to reduce its own employer obligations. "From 2020 through 2024 alone, US Foods used at least $13,685,000 in forfeitures to reduce employer-contribution obligations while the Plan reported at least $7,331,000 in Plan expenses," plaintiffs wrote in the 29-page complaint. A representative from US Foods Inc. declined to comment on the pending lawsuit. When US Foods realized the issue, it tried to preserve those gains by retroactively amending the plan document. Plaintiffs noted in the complaint that the retirement plan's long amendment history made US Foods' wrongdoing all the more glaring. Over the years, the company amended hardship withdrawal rules, contribution limits, vesting-service rules, compensation definitions, profit-sharing contributions, distribution options and other plan features. The amendments did not address forfeitures until 2024, when "US Foods adopted Amendment Eight to the Plan Document. Amendment Eight provides that forfeitures shall retain their character as Employer Contributions and be applied as credits against future employer contributions unless US Foods elects to pay employer contributions without offset. But US Foods did not just attempt to amend the Plan Document going forward. Instead, US Foods claimed in Amendment Eight that the new language about forfeitures was retroactive and effective on January 1, 2019." The employees reiterated that Amendment Eight was not a clarification or updated explanation of the plan. Rather, it was a confession. "That backdating is not a cure. It is evidence of the breach and improper fiduciary conduct," plaintiffs wrote in the complaint. "US Foods knew its conduct violated ERISA and the Plan Document. So, US Foods tried to change the language and make the change retroactive. This is evidence of an evil mind." [GN] VACASA INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized investor-rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of former public common shareholders of Vacasa, Inc. ("Vacasa") (former ticker symbol: VCSA), who were harmed by alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the acquisition of Vacasa by Casago (the "Merger"). Investors who owned Vacasa common stock as of March 12, 2025 (the record date to vote on the Merger) and who had their stock exchanged for the merger consideration (the "Class") are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/VCSA. Vacasa Case Details The Complaint alleges that: -- in connection with the Merger, each share of Vacasa common stock was converted into $5.30 in cash, which was financially unfair to Vacasa shareholders; -- the Proxy Statements filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Merger contained materially misleading and incomplete information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act; and -- as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. What's Next for Vacasa Investors? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/VCSA, or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 917-590-0911. If you owned Vacasa shares and your stock was exchanged for the merger, you have until June 30, 2026, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. No Cost to Vacasa Investors We, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC for Vacasa Securities Class Action? Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. More at www.bgandg.com "Our practice centers on restoring investor capital and ensuring corporate accountability, which serves to uphold the essential integrity of the marketplace," said Peretz Bronstein, Founding Partner of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC. Contact Info Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Nathan Miller, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (917) 590-0911 info@bgandg.com [GN] VENEZUELA: Seeks Extension of Class Cert Briefing Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cavara et al v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 1:25-cv-00165-RA-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting: (i) a three-week extension of the class certification briefing deadlines, whereby the Republic's deadline to respond to the class certification motion is extended to June 24, 2026, and the Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply brief is extended to July 22, 2026; and (ii) a three-week extension of the Republic's deadline to respond to the second amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), from June 3, 2026 to June 24, 2026. The parties also request approval of the following motion to dismiss briefing schedule: The Plaintiffs' deadline to file an opposition to the Republic's motion to dismiss is July 22, 2026; and The Republic's deadline to file a reply brief is Aug. 12, 2026. The Plaintiffs filed their class certification motion on March 5, 2026. On May 20, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint. Venezuela is a country on the northern coast of South America with diverse natural attractions. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5g1OMz at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Dora Georgescu, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP 1114 Avenue of Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 237-0186 Facsimile: (212) 237-0100 E-mail: dgeorgescu@velaw.com VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Chen Files Fraud Suit in D.N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, et al. The case is captioned as TIMOTHY Y. CHEN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-05409-EP-JRA (D.N.J., May 13, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendants for fraud claims. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft is a multinational conglomerate automotive manufacturer headquartered in Germany. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq. James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, PC 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Email: cbartlett@carellabyrne.com jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Tyler Stephen Graden, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com tgraden@ktmc.com VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Faces Suit Over SUVs' Battery Defect ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Volkswagen has concealed a dangerous defect in the high-voltage (HV) lithium-ion batteries installed in certain 2023-2025 ID.4 SUVs that can cause the vehicles to overheat, catch fire or otherwise suffer catastrophic damage. The 77-page lawsuit contends that Volkswagen has continued to market the all-electric ID.4 as an intelligently engineered, safe and forward-looking vehicle despite knowing that the SUVs were plagued by defective battery systems susceptible to "thermal events" -- sometimes during Level 3 DC charging, the most efficient and quickest form of vehicle charging -- or while parked and not charging, or while driving. According to the complaint, the VW defect stems from electrode misalignment within the high-voltage battery's power-generating compartments, called cells. The suit explains that electrodes store lithium, and electrolytes carry lithium ions from a negative electrode (anodes) to positive electrode (cathode) in the form of electricity or vice versa, from cathode to anode, when a cell is charging. The class action lawsuit says that VW has admitted that the battery maker SK Battery America, after reviewing damaged cell modules, "found that the damaged cell modules contained shifted cathodes." The lawsuit says that the automaker received several reports of battery-related thermal events between January 2024 and August 2025, with some incidents tied to high-voltage battery charging at Level 3 chargers and others occurring while a vehicle was parked and not charging. Per the complaint, Volkswagen did not begin to issue recalls until late 2025, nearly two years after it first learned of an ID.4 battery fire, despite having access to testing results, consumer complaints and internal data that should have revealed the defect before ID.4 drivers were put at risk. In December 2025, Volkswagen issued the first of three recalls tied to what it described as a "quality deviation" in the battery electrodes, an initiative that initially covered 311 vehicles before being expanded to 629 vehicles, the suit relays. As part of the recall, drivers were instructed to avoid Level 3 DC chargers, limit charging capacity to 80 percent and avoid charging vehicles indoors overnight, the filing says. The complaint relays that Volkswagen later issued two additional recalls in January 2026, which in total covered tens of thousands of vehicles. According to the suit, the automaker offered free battery health inspections for one recall, and software updates and replacements as needed in affected vehicles models. The lawsuit argues that Volkswagen, before selling the vehicles, should have discovered the ID.4 battery defect through standard pre-sale testing and validation procedures routinely used in the automotive industry. "The use of better safety systems and more rigorous testing would have prevented the reported thermal event and battery fire incidents in the Class Vehicles and the significant cost and inconvenience now visited upon Plaintiffs and members of the Class," the filing asserts. Similarly, the suit points to a 2017 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report that warned manufacturers about the dangers of lithium-ion battery "thermal runaway" events, a phenomenon whereby the lithium-ion cell in a high-voltage battery enters an "uncontrollable, self-heating state" capable of causing fires and explosions. Despite these documented risks, the suit alleges, Volkswagen continued to market the vehicles at issue as dependable and safe long-term investments. According to the complaint, Volkswagen heavily promoted the ID.4 as the "future of driving" and backed the SUVs with a four-year/50,000 new vehicle limited warranty and an eight-year/100,000-mile battery-specific warranty coverage. However, the lawsuit alleges that consumers have been left with vehicles of diminished value, with charging restrictions and safety concerns given the ongoing risk of battery failure. The Volkswagen ID.4 class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals and entities who purchased or leased a 2023-2025 Volkswagen ID.4 in the United States. [GN] WALMAN OPTICAL: Crimando Sues Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ JANNA CRIMANDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE WALMAN OPTICAL COMPANY d/b/a WALMAN OPTICAL, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02664 (D. Minn., May 19, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former customers' and patients' sensitive information, including protected health information and other personally identifiable information. On or around April 27, 2026, the Defendant experienced unauthorized access to its IT Network. Since the data breach occurred, the notorious ransomware group "Medusa" has claimed responsibility for the data breach. Medusa has already leaked Plaintiff and Class Members private information on the dark web. As a result, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information has been damaged and diminished by its compromise and unauthorized release. Accordingly, Plaintiff now brings three causes of action: negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The Walman Optical Company manufactures and distributes prescription lenses, frames, and other ophthalmic goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com WALMART INC: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Hiring System in Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A new class action lawsuit filed by Massachusetts job applicants alleges that Walmart operates an unlawful hiring system that forced them to disclose their criminal records and undergo unlawful honesty testing, as a condition of their employment. The plaintiff in this case is represented by Outten & Golden LLP and Fair Work PC. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Walmart, which employs more than 13,000 people in Massachusetts, requires job applicants to voluntarily disclose their criminal records as a condition of their employment. Job applicants who failed to participate in this process lost their job opportunities altogether, while those who did had their responses analyzed for "truthfulness" against independently obtained criminal records. According to the lawsuit, Walmart's system functions as a lie detector test, which is clearly prohibited under Massachusetts law. The plaintiff in this case, Donald Keets, alleges that he applied for an overnight stocking position at Walmart in Seekonk, Massachusetts in January 2025. At that time, he disclosed a prior conviction during the hiring process. Despite his honesty, Walmart revoked his conditional job offer -- even though Walmart's own background check failed to uncover the conviction. "I was honest about my past because I believed that was the right thing to do," said Donald Keets. "It feels like it's a trap – and it means people like me can't get a fair shot at working." "Massachusetts law is clear: employers cannot force applicants to submit to honesty testing in order to get a job," said Christopher M. McNerney, partner at Outten & Golden and one of the attorneys for the plaintiff. This is the second lawsuit filed by Outten & Golden challenging Walmart's use of criminal history information in its hiring process. In New Jersey, Outten & Golden and its co-counsel Youth Represent are litigating a class action lawsuit challenging Walmart's overly broad background check process and the disparate impact it has on Black job applicants. About Outten & Golden Outten & Golden LLP is one of the largest U.S. law firms dedicated to the representation of workers. With offices in New York City, Washington D.C., and Oakland, CA, the firm has taken on many of the country's largest and most powerful employers, forging landmark settlements and historic verdicts that contribute to more fair and equitable workplaces. As a mission-driven firm, Outten & Golden uses litigation and other means to enforce the rights of all employees to fair wages and working conditions, and a workplace free of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Learn more at outtengolden.com. About Fair Work PC Fair Work is a diverse team of award-winning employment lawyers with decades of experience handling all kinds of workplace issues. Since 2013, the firm has pioneered some of the most significant developments in its field and recovered tens of millions of dollars for workers in Massachusetts and throughout the United States. [GN] WALMART INC: Opioid Class Actions Pending in Canadian Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Walmart Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2026, thatWal-Mart Canada Corp. and certain other subsidiaries of the company have been named as defendants in two putative class action complaints filed in Canada related to distribution practices involving opioids. These matters remain pending, and no final resolution, judgment, or settlement has been reached at this time. Walmart Inc. is a global retail company that operates a chain of supercenters, discount stores, grocery stores, and e-commerce platforms. The company serves customers worldwide through its Walmart and Sam's Club brands and related digital channels. WASHINGTON: Depresses Nurses' Wages, Carlson Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- EMILY CARLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE OF WASHINGTON d/b/a UW MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 26-2-15780-4 SEA (Wash. Super., King Cty., May 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Washington Law Prohibiting Unlawful Noncompetition Covenants, Revised Code of Washington 19.86.030 and the Common Law Prohibition Against Unreasonable Noncompetition Covenants, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and the Wage Rebate Act. The case arises from the Defendant's policies and practices that depress wages, restrain nurses from improving working conditions at UW Medical Center, and trap workers in place so that they cannot work for competitors. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all her similarly situated coworkers to redress and remedy the Defendant's violations of Washington law and to recover damages, penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. State of Washington d/b/a UW Medical Center is the formal legal name used in contracts, vendor agreements, and lawsuits for the University of Washington Medical Center, a major teaching hospital owned by the state and operated through UW Medicine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald W. Heyrich, Esq. Jason A. Rittereiser, Esq. Rachel M. Emens, Esq. Joseph W. Wright, Esq. Nicholas C. Greenfield, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 600 Stewart Street, Suite 901 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 838-2504 Facsimile: (206) 260-3055 Email: dheyrich@hkm.com jrittereiser@hkm.com remens@hkm.com jwright@hkm.com ngreenfield@hkm.com WATERBOY LLC: Dilena Sues Over Drink Mixes' Deceptive Marketing --------------------------------------------------------------- Julia Dilena, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Waterboy, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-05361 (C.D. Cal., May 19, 2026), aims to hold Defendant, Waterboy LLC, responsible for failing to truthfully and accurately label and market its drink mixes. The Defendant has allegedly misrepresented that its drink mix products are "All Natural", "Naturally flavored" or "Natural Flavor with Other Natural Flavor." However, contrary to Defendant's misrepresentations, the said products contain a number of artificial ingredients, including manufactured citric acid. The Plaintiff did not expect Defendant to publicly place deceptive statements about the products on their front labels or Defendant's online listings, says the suit. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered injury in fact when she spent money purchasing these products she would not have purchased, or would have paid less for, absent Defendant's misconduct. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings nine causes of action: unfair competition, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, false advertising, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation/fraud, breach of consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Austin, TX, Waterboy, LLC. operates in the food and beverage industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaniel H. Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 165 Broadway, Fl. 23 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gucovschilaw.com nathaniel@gucovschilaw.com WHITEPAGES INC: Class Cert Bid in Carrera Due May 26, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CARRERA, ET AL, v. WHITEPAGES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01408-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered an order setting the following case management deadlines: -- Deadline to complete the first phase of fact discovery (e.g., concerning the plaintiff's individual claims and class certification): Dec. 22, 2026. -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs' expert witness disclosures: Mar. 4, 2027. -- Deadline for the Defendant's expert witness disclosures: Apr. 8, 2027. -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification: May 26, 2027. -- Deadline to complete remaining class discovery: three months after the Court rules on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Whitepages is a provider of online directory services, fraud screening, background checks and identity verification for consumers and businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated May 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=brSfK3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nick Major, Esq. NICK MAJOR LAW 450 Alaskan Way S. #200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 410-5688 E-mail: nick@nickmajorlaw.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. Tyler K. Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com tsome@hedinllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Tyler L. Farmer, Esq. Ariel A. Martinez, Esq. MARTINEZ & FARMER LLP 4020 East Madison St., Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98112 Telephone: (206) 208-2270 E-mail: tyler@mfseattle.com ariel@mfseattle.com WISE GROUP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Wise Group plc (NASDAQ: WSE) resulting from allegations that Wise Group plc may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Wise Group plc securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/wise-group-plc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On June 1, 2026, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Wise Group Faces Court Summons Over Money Laundering Probe." The article stated that "Brussels' public prosecutor is close to summoning payment processor Wise Group before a criminal court following an investigation into potential money laundering offenses." On this news, Wise stock fell sharply in intra-day trading on June 1, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] WIX.COM LTD: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces an investigation into Wix.com Ltd. (NASDAQ:WIX) for potential securities fraud after its significant stock drop. If you invested in Wix, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/wix-class-action-lawsuit. Key Details of the Wix ($WIX) Class Action Investigation: -- Investigation Overview: Securities fraud regarding Wix's misrepresentations to investors regarding demand, AI competition, and its ability to deliver new products and innovation to sustain growth. -- Stock Decline: May 13, 2026 - 27% Stock Drop -- Action: Contact BFA Law to discuss your rights Why is Wix Being Investigated for Securities Fraud? Wix provides a platform for creating and managing websites without coding. The company has recently increased focus on artificial intelligence tools, including its AI-powered website builder, Wix Harmony, and its acquisition of the AI application platform Base44. BFA is investigating whether Wix made false and misleading statements to investors regarding demand from professional designers, AI competition, and its ability to deliver new products and innovation to sustain growth. Why did Wix's Stock Drop? On May 13, 2026, Wix released its 1Q 2026 financial results. The company reported earnings and revenue below consensus expectations, and a sharp decline in operating margins which it largely attributed to softness in its professional developer business. Specifically, Wix acknowledged that its professional developer customers were using competing AI tools, its new Wix Harmony platform had "holes" and "missing capabilities," there had been delays in delivering product updates and innovation to professional developer customers, and as a result the company had fallen behind "the workflow and the needs of" professional developers. This news caused the price of Wix stock to decline $20.56 per share, or 27%, from a closing price of $75.88 per share on May 12, 2026, to $55.32 per share on May 13, 2026. Visit link for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/wix-class-action-lawsuit. What Can You Do? If you invested in Wix, you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis; there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/wix-class-action-lawsuit Or contact: Adam McCall, Esq. Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP (212) 789-3619 adam@bfalaw.com Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, "Litigation Stars" by Benchmark Litigation, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. [GN] ZOE LEV: Bowman Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ---------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZOE LEV JEWELRY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05931 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://zoelev.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Zoe Lev Jewelry Corporation is a Los Angeles-based fine jewelry company founded in 2011. The brand manufactures customizable 14k gold personalized necklaces, rings, and bracelets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law ********* 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 ***