Recent filings
Shakespeare v. Anthropic PBC
The plaintiffs allege that Anthropic unlawfully used copyrighted written works to train its artificial intelligence systems without obtaining permission from the copyright holders or providing any compensation. The lawsuit claims that Anthropic scraped and ingested large volumes of protected creative and literary content to build and improve its AI models, including its Claude assistant, in violation of federal copyright law. The proposed class is expected to include authors, writers, and other copyright holders whose original works were allegedly copied and used without authorization during the development and training of Anthropic's AI products. The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief for what they characterize as large-scale infringement of their intellectual property rights.
APITZ-GROSSMAN v. EMBECTA CORP.
Investors are suing Embecta Corp, a medical device company that makes diabetes care products like insulin syringes and pen needles, alleging that the company and its executives misled shareholders about the business's financial health and growth prospects. The plaintiffs claim that Embecta made overly optimistic statements about its ability to maintain revenue, manage costs, and successfully operate as an independent company after being spun off from Becton Dickinson. When the true state of the business became clearer through disappointing financial results and revised outlooks, the stock price dropped significantly, harming investors. The proposed class includes people who purchased Embecta securities during a specific period when the allegedly misleading statements were being made.
Gagleard v. Perplexity AI, Inc.
The plaintiff, Gagleard, has filed a class action lawsuit against Perplexity AI, an artificial intelligence search and answer engine company. The lawsuit alleges that Perplexity AI breached its contract with users, meaning the company failed to live up to the promises or terms it made to customers who signed up for or paid for its service. While the full details of the complaint are not provided here, the case suggests that Perplexity AI did not deliver what it agreed to provide under its terms of service or subscription agreement. The proposed class would likely include other consumers who paid for or used Perplexity AI's services and were similarly affected by the company's alleged failure to honor its contractual obligations to its users.
Kilmer v. NewsBank, Inc.
Consumers are suing NewsBank, a company that provides digital news archive and database services, alleging that it improperly collected, used, or disclosed their personal information without adequate consent. The plaintiffs claim that NewsBank violated federal statutory protections by handling subscriber or user data in ways that go beyond what customers were told or agreed to. This may involve sharing reading habits, search history, or personal identifiers with third parties without permission. The proposed class is expected to include individuals who subscribed to or used NewsBank's digital services and whose personal information was allegedly collected or disclosed in violation of their rights under federal law.
Cornellier v. Rivian, LLC
Consumers are suing Rivian, the electric vehicle manufacturer, alleging the company engaged in fraudulent conduct that harmed buyers. The plaintiffs claim Rivian misled them in connection with the purchase or ownership of Rivian vehicles, causing them financial harm. While the specific details of the alleged fraud are not fully described in the case filing, the lawsuit is brought as a class action on behalf of a proposed group of consumers who were similarly affected by Rivian's allegedly deceptive or dishonest practices. The case was filed in federal court based on diversity of citizenship, meaning the plaintiffs and the company are from different states, and the total damages are expected to exceed the federal threshold required for federal court jurisdiction.
Nixon v. Tan Oak Financial d/b/a Tan Oak Lending
Consumers are suing Tan Oak Financial, which operates under the name Tan Oak Lending, over allegations related to its lending practices. The plaintiff, Nixon, filed this class action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated consumers who had dealings with the company. While the specific cause of action has not been detailed in the available filing information, the lawsuit targets the company's conduct in connection with financial products or loan services it provides to consumers. The proposed class likely includes individuals who obtained or applied for loans or other financial products through Tan Oak Lending and were allegedly harmed by the company's business practices. Further details about the precise legal claims and class definition are expected to emerge as the case proceeds.
Corporate Interior Solutions Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA
Corporate Interior Solutions Inc. is suing JP Morgan Chase Bank over alleged fraudulent conduct related to banking or financial services. The plaintiff, a business entity, claims that Chase engaged in some form of deceptive or fraudulent behavior that caused financial harm. While the specific details of the complaint are not fully outlined here, cases of this nature typically involve allegations that a bank mishandled funds, made unauthorized transactions, facilitated fraudulent activity, or failed to protect a business account from fraud. The proposed class would likely consist of other business customers of JP Morgan Chase who experienced similar fraudulent or improper treatment in connection with their banking relationship or financial accounts held at the institution.
Kahn v. Anthropic PBC
Consumers are suing Anthropic, the company behind the Claude artificial intelligence platform, alleging that the company engaged in wrongful conduct related to its AI products or services. The plaintiff, Kahn, is bringing this case on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated consumers who interacted with or subscribed to Anthropic's AI offerings. While the specific cause of action has not been detailed in the available filing information, the lawsuit targets Anthropic's business practices in connection with how it markets, operates, or delivers its AI services to paying or non-paying users. The proposed class likely consists of individuals in the United States who used or purchased access to Anthropic's Claude AI assistant or related products during a defined time period.
Aquino v. Evertec Group LLC
Plaintiffs are suing Evertec Group, a payment technology and services company, alleging that the company caused property damage or financial harm to consumers. The lawsuit is brought as a diversity action, meaning the parties are from different states and the amount in dispute exceeds the federal threshold. While the full details of the complaint are not specified here, the case centers on claims that Evertec's actions or failures in handling payment processing or related financial services resulted in personal property losses for affected consumers. The proposed class likely consists of individuals who used Evertec's services and suffered financial or property-related damages as a result of the company's alleged conduct during a specific period of time.
Williams v. Justfab, LLC
Consumers are suing Justfab, an online fashion membership club, alleging the company violated its own contract terms by enrolling customers in a recurring monthly membership program without adequately disclosing the automatic billing practices. Plaintiffs claim that when they made purchases or signed up for deals on the Justfab website, they were not clearly informed they were agreeing to a monthly membership that would charge their payment method on a recurring basis. The lawsuit argues that Justfab continued charging members even when they tried to cancel or believed they had already done so. The proposed class includes consumers across the United States who were charged membership fees they did not knowingly authorize or who were unable to successfully cancel their subscriptions despite attempting to do so.
Trocchio v. Zara USA, Inc.
Shoppers are suing Zara USA, the American arm of the global fashion retailer, alleging the company deceived consumers through fraudulent practices related to its products or pricing. The plaintiff, Trocchio, brings this case on behalf of a proposed class of consumers who were similarly misled when purchasing from Zara. While the specific details of the alleged deception are outlined in the complaint, the core claim is that Zara engaged in conduct that misrepresented something material about its goods or services, causing customers to make purchases they otherwise would not have made or to pay more than they should have. The lawsuit seeks damages for the affected consumers under fraud-based theories, with the case filed in federal court based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
Rose v. X.AI LLC
Plaintiffs allege that X.AI, the company behind the Grok artificial intelligence platform, violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act by enrolling customers in recurring subscription plans without obtaining proper authorization and without providing adequate disclosures about automatic charges to their payment accounts. The lawsuit claims that customers were charged repeatedly without clear notice about how the auto-renewal billing worked, making it difficult for them to cancel or avoid unwanted charges. Plaintiffs contend that the company failed to follow legally required procedures for setting up recurring electronic payments. The proposed class includes consumers across the United States who signed up for a paid X.AI subscription and were subjected to these allegedly unauthorized or improperly disclosed recurring electronic fund transfers from their bank accounts or debit cards.
Senior v. Black Ember Inc.
This lawsuit alleges that Black Ember, a company that sells bags and accessories, operates a website that is not accessible to people with disabilities, particularly those who are blind or visually impaired and rely on screen reader software to navigate the internet. The plaintiff contends that the website contains barriers that prevent disabled users from independently browsing products, obtaining information, and completing purchases in the same way that non-disabled customers can. Because of these alleged access failures, disabled individuals are effectively excluded from the full benefits of shopping on the site. The proposed class would include all visually impaired and legally blind people in the United States who have tried to use the Black Ember website and encountered these accessibility obstacles.
Ching Cheng v. Erasca, Inc.
Shareholders are suing Erasca, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, alleging that the company and its executives misled investors about the prospects and progress of its cancer treatment pipeline. The plaintiffs claim that Erasca made overly optimistic statements about its drug development programs while concealing material risks and setbacks that would have negatively affected investors' decisions to buy or hold the company's stock. When the truth about the company's situation allegedly became public, the stock price dropped, causing financial losses for shareholders. The proposed class includes all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Erasca securities during a specific period and suffered losses as a result of the alleged misleading statements and omissions.
Mazza v. Robinhood Markets, Inc.
Plaintiffs allege that Robinhood, the popular commission-free trading app, misled consumers about the nature of its brokerage services and how it makes money. The lawsuit claims that Robinhood marketed itself as a platform designed to benefit everyday retail investors while concealing that it profits by selling customers' trading orders to large financial firms, a practice known as payment for order flow. Plaintiffs contend this arrangement results in customers receiving worse trade prices than they would on other platforms, costing them money despite the promise of free trading. The proposed class consists of consumers who used Robinhood's brokerage services and traded securities during the relevant period, arguing they were deceived into believing they were getting a genuinely cost-free and investor-friendly trading experience.
MAZZARINO v. ADMA BIOLOGICS, INC.
Investors are suing ADMA Biologics, a pharmaceutical company, alleging that the company and its executives made false or misleading statements to the investing public in violation of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs claim that ADMA Biologics misled investors about material aspects of its business, financial condition, or operations, causing the company's stock price to be artificially inflated. When the truth allegedly came to light, the stock price dropped, causing financial harm to shareholders. The proposed class consists of investors who purchased ADMA Biologics securities during a specific time period and suffered losses as a result of the alleged misrepresentations. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all affected shareholders.
Love v. Delaware North Companies, Inc.
Consumers are suing Delaware North Companies, a major hospitality and food service company that operates concessions at stadiums, arenas, airports, and other entertainment venues. The plaintiffs allege that the company charged unfair or deceptive prices for food and beverages sold at its concession stands, potentially including hidden fees or charges that were not clearly disclosed to customers at the point of sale. The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of consumers who purchased food or beverages from Delaware North-operated concession locations and were subjected to these allegedly improper pricing practices. The plaintiffs are seeking compensation and potentially changes to how the company discloses its pricing to customers going forward.
Meyer v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Plaintiffs are suing Liberty Mutual, one of the largest insurance companies in the United States, in a proposed class action lawsuit. While the specific details of the complaint are limited, the case appears to involve allegations related to Liberty Mutual's insurance products or business practices that allegedly harmed consumers. The proposed class would likely consist of policyholders or customers who were affected by the same conduct at issue. Insurance company class actions commonly involve disputes over claim denials, premium overcharges, policy misrepresentations, or improper business practices. The plaintiffs are seeking relief on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated consumers who may have experienced the same alleged harm from Liberty Mutual's conduct.
BUSCH v. BLAIR
Plaintiffs are suing Blair, a retail company, over claims arising under federal law related to a contractual dispute. The lawsuit alleges that Blair engaged in conduct that harmed consumers, though the specific nature of the contract-related claims points to potential issues with how the company handled agreements or obligations with its customers. The proposed class likely includes consumers who entered into contracts or agreements with Blair and were allegedly harmed by the company's actions or failures to fulfill its obligations. The plaintiffs are seeking relief on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals who experienced the same or similar harm as a result of Blair's alleged conduct.
Tan v. Columbia Sportswear Company
Consumers are suing Columbia Sportswear, alleging that the outdoor clothing and gear company misled shoppers about its pricing practices. The plaintiffs claim that Columbia advertised fake or inflated original prices for its products, making discounts appear larger than they actually were. In other words, the company allegedly listed a higher "regular" price that items were never genuinely sold at, then promoted a "sale" price to create the false impression that customers were getting a significant deal. The proposed class includes consumers who purchased Columbia Sportswear products at what were represented as discounted prices during a certain time period, believing they were receiving a genuine markdown from a legitimate original price.