This class action lawsuit revolves around Gift Cards issued in the year 2009 by Abercrombie & Fitch.  The lawsuit is entitled Beth Seaver v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. and is Case No. 11-cv-771466.  The lawsuit claims that Abercrombie & Fitch advertised a gift-card promotion to Ohio consumers in December 2009 with no expiration date but went on to void the gift cards in January 2010 which is a breach of contract and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act according to the Abercrombie & Fitch Gift Card Class Action Lawsuit. 

The gift cards issued in 2009 were a result of a promotion where a customer would make a purchase of $100 or more (at Ohio Abercrombie stores) and then receive a $25 Abercrombie gift card.  At the time of promotion there was not an expiration date on the gift card.  But then on January 30, 2010 things went terribly wrong.  Abercrombie & Fitch VOIDED the gift card on that date rendering it useless to customers who received the gift card in relation to the $100 promotional campaign.  Abercrombie electronically put an expiration date on the gift card, despite the cards indicated there was no expiration date.  This seems like a pretty shady move by this popular teen clothing store.  More can be read about the Abercrombie & Fitch Gift Card Class Action Lawsuit here.

These type of “all natural” class action lawsuit seem to be a dime a dozen nowadays.  The latest one involves Frito-Lay Tostitos & SunChips.  The lawsuit claims that these chips labeled their product as “all natural”  when they really contained  ingredients made from plants grown from genetically modified seeds.  Remember that Tostitos commercial around Superbowl time last year that depicted a pretty girl buying Tostitos at her local supermarket and picking them over other brands because they were all natural and only had  truly natural ingredients?  Well it turns out that this commercial may have been inaccurate according to the Frito-Lay Tostitos & SunChips “All Natural” Class Action Lawsuit. 

The main problem for Frito-Lay seems to be that the corn and vegetable oil used to make the chips are made from genetically modified plants.  Consumers paid higher prices for Tostitos & SunChips because they thought they were getting an ALL NATURAL food and were truly natural.  The lawsuit is entitled Julie Gengo v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-10322, and is in the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court, Central District of California.  The lawsuit includes anyone who purchased Tostitos or SunChips from December 12, 2007 through the final disposition of the case (still to be determined).  The class action lawsuit is seeking damages, restitution and a permanent injunction barring Frito-Lay from continuing the false advertising.  A copy of the case can be viewed here.

Wal-Mart and Merrill Lynch are in the middle of a class action lawsuit that claims they charged unreasonable fees to Wal-Mart employees in relation to their 401k plans.  The lawsuit also claims that Merrill Lynch received undisclosed kickback payments from outside mutual fund companies “simply for allowing them to be in the plan,”… wow!  Talk about corruption, maybe those Wall Street Protestors have a point.  The case is entitled Jeremy Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., and as part of the settlement Wal-Mart employees will receive a reduced 401(k) fee going forward. The lead plaintiff will collect 20k under the settlement terms.  The Wal-Mart 401k program is one of the largest in the world and it is estimated that 2,000,000 workers participate in it.  Both Wal-Mart and Merrill Lynch have denied all wrong doing in the case.

A class action lawsuit was filed against Hooters on behalf of 400 current and former Hooters employees in the Sacramento, CA area.  The lawsuit claims that the employees were not compensated for all worked performed, did not provide rest breaks and making employees pay for customers who walked out on checks.  This is in violation of the California labor laws according to the California Hooters Waitresses Class Action Lawsuit. 

The state of Massachusetts authorities recently fined Starbucks in relation to a $1.50 hidden fee charged to customers on small quantities of bulk coffee.  This action prompted a class action lawsuit to be filed against the popular coffee company.  The hidden fee in question was charged to customers when they purchased less than a pound of coffee.  The fee was not stated on customers’ receipts… pretty shady move Starbucks. 

The Starbucks Hidden Fee Class Action Lawsuit states “Customers were not given notice of such a fee prior to purchasing such bags of coffee, nor were they given notice after their purchase on their receipt,” and “It was a completely undisclosed fee that unsuspecting customers were paying at stores around the country.”

Starbucks claims that they charged the fee due to a labor expense of having an employee break open a pre-sealed 1-pound bag to sell.  OK but shouldn’t they have to tell the customer they are charging them a buck fifty for this labor expense?  Starbucks really doesnt have a leg to stand on in this lawsuit.  It is estimated about 75,000 Massachusetts residents had paid this crooked hidden fee.

The lawsuit is entitled Bonnie Kurnick v. Starbucks Corporation (Case No. 11-cv-01985) and is in the jurisdiction of the  U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington.  Starbucks eliminated the surcharge at stores nationwide on November 7 but the damage has already been done.  Class members in the Starbucks coffee hidden fee lawsuit include anyone who purchased Starbucks coffee weighing less than one pound within the past four years.  A copy of the lawsuit can be read here.

The Reebok Toning Shoes and Apparel lawsuit claim that’s Reebok violated numerous laws when marketing these toning products.  Reebok denies all wrong doing but has agreed to settle in order to avoid a lengthy court battle.  If you purchased Reebok toning shoes and/or apparel from December 5, 2008 through October 12, 2011 you might be eligible for a settlement payout under the ReebokSettlement.  “Eligible Apparel” and “Eligible Shoes” include the following:

EasyTone
EasyTone Flip
RunTone
TrainTone 
JumpTone
SimplyTone 
SlimTone 
EasyTone Capri
EasyTone Pants 
EasyTone Shorts
EasyTone Long Bra Top 
EasyTone Sleeveless Shirt
EasyTone Short Sleeve Top 

If you purchased one of the above named Reebok products you should file a claim form immediately.  All claim forms must be electronically submitted no later than April 10, 2012 or postmarked no later than April 10, 2012.  If you fail to submit a claim you will not be eligible for any type of settlement.  If you would like to object to the ReebokSettlement please do so no later than December 28, 2011.  By objecting to the settlement you feel the that settlement is not fair.  A settlement fairness hearing will be held on January 17, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. at the federal courthouse, courtroom 2, Donohue Federal Building, 595 Main Street, Worcester, Massachusetts, to determine if the settlement is fair and reasonable.  You can request to speak at the hearing if you feel the need to.  All request to speak at the hearing are due by December 28, 2011.

The settlement amount could be the same, or less than $50 for each pair of Eligible Shoes, $40 for each EasyTone Capri and EasyTone Pants, and $25 for each applicable shirt, bra top and top.  This settlement is definitely worth you time to apply for if you’re a class member.  A total settlement fund of $25,000,000 has been developed. 

For more information, to include the claim form, please visit the settlement admin website.

www.reeboksettlement.com

Best Buy is one of the world’s most popular electronic store and are also the focus of a class action lawsuit claiming violation of the Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act .  The lawsuit is entitled Best Buy Return Policy DPPA Class Action Lawsuit (Case No. 11-cv-81292-KLR) and is in the jurisdiction of the Southern District Court of Florida.  The lawsuit revolves around claims that Best Buy took, stored, used and shared customers’ personal or highly restricted personal information.  The personal information was obtained when customers would return a product to Best Buy. 

According to the lawsuit “some of the information from your ID may be stored in a secure, encrypted database of customer activity that Best Buy and its affiliates use to track exchanges and returns,”.  For example a customers driver licensed could have been scanned and then stored in an unsecure database.  The unsecure database could led to identity theft.  The lawsuit claims that under DPPA policy the driver’s license is not supposed to be used in the normal course of business.  It could be a long Christmas Season for Best Buy… Old Saint Nick might just leave some coal for one of the world’s largest electronic stores. 

Please check back for settlement information in the case.