Recent filings
Signal Point Networks, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Signal Point Networks filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics, claiming that Samsung has been making, selling, and using products and technologies that violate Signal Point's patented inventions without authorization. The lawsuit alleges that Samsung's devices or systems incorporate technology that belongs to Signal Point Networks under its registered patents, and that Samsung has done so without obtaining a proper license or permission. Signal Point is seeking compensation for the unauthorized use of its intellectual property, as well as a court order to stop Samsung from continuing to infringe. The proposed class or relief is directed at recovering damages tied to Samsung's alleged infringement of the specific patents identified in the complaint.
Murgolo v. TARGET CORPORATION
Consumers are suing Target over allegedly deceptive pricing practices. The plaintiffs claim that Target advertises products at artificially inflated "original" or "regular" prices and then presents discounted prices that appear to offer significant savings, when in reality the so-called regular prices do not reflect what customers actually pay for those items in the normal course of business. This makes shoppers believe they are getting a better deal than they actually are. The proposed class is expected to include consumers across the United States, or potentially in specific states, who purchased products from Target that were marketed using these misleading reference prices, causing them to pay for items they believed were discounted but were not genuinely reduced from a real prior price.
Simpson v. Apple, Inc.
A group of consumers is suing Apple, alleging the company engaged in fraudulent conduct that harmed them financially or misled them in some material way. The plaintiffs claim that Apple made false or deceptive representations in connection with its products or services, causing consumers to suffer damages they would not have otherwise incurred. The proposed class likely includes individuals across the United States who purchased Apple products or services and were similarly affected by the alleged misconduct. The case is being brought in federal court based on diversity of citizenship between the parties, and the plaintiffs are seeking compensation on behalf of themselves and all others who were harmed by Apple's alleged fraudulent practices.
Goyette v. Equifax Information Services, LLC
A consumer named Goyette has filed a class action lawsuit against Equifax, one of the major credit reporting agencies in the United States, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The plaintiff claims that Equifax failed to follow proper procedures in handling consumer credit information, which may include issues such as reporting inaccurate information, failing to investigate disputes, or improperly sharing consumer data. The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of consumers who were similarly affected by Equifax's alleged improper credit reporting practices. The Fair Credit Reporting Act sets strict rules about how credit bureaus must collect, maintain, and distribute consumer credit information, and the plaintiff contends that Equifax fell short of these legal obligations, causing harm to consumers in the process.
Marquardt v. East Coast OH, LLC d/b/a Simply 7OH
The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against East Coast OH, which operates under the name Simply 7OH, alleging harm caused by one of the company's products. Based on the product liability nature of the case, the plaintiff claims that a product sold by Simply 7OH — likely a supplement, beverage, or similar consumable — was defective or unsafe and caused personal injury. The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of consumers who purchased or used the same product and suffered similar harm. The case was filed in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, meaning the plaintiff and defendant are from different states and the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000. The proposed class likely includes customers who bought the product within a defined time period.
Walenga v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
Consumers are suing Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, a major power tool manufacturer, alleging that the company breached its contractual obligations related to its products. The plaintiffs claim that Milwaukee Electric Tool failed to honor commitments made to customers, likely involving warranties, product performance, or service agreements associated with their power tools or related equipment. The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of similarly affected consumers who purchased Milwaukee Electric Tool products and experienced the same alleged failures by the company to meet its obligations. The case was filed as a breach of contract claim, suggesting that customers believe the company did not deliver on specific promises or guarantees made at the time of purchase or through its warranty programs.
Day v. First Solar, Inc.
Investors are suing First Solar, a major solar panel manufacturer and energy 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 First Solar concealed or misrepresented important information about the company's business, operations, or financial condition, causing investors to purchase the company's securities at artificially inflated prices. When the truth allegedly came to light, the stock price dropped, causing financial harm to shareholders. The proposed class consists of investors who bought First Solar securities during a specific period when the misleading statements were allegedly being made, and who suffered losses as a result of the subsequent decline in the stock's value.
Augitto v. Ragusa
This is a stockholder class action lawsuit filed against Ragusa and associated defendants under the Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose important information to investors, which caused shareholders to purchase securities at artificially inflated prices. When the truth was eventually revealed, the stock price dropped and investors suffered financial losses. The proposed class consists of individuals and entities who purchased or acquired the company's securities during a specific period and were harmed as a result of the alleged misconduct. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all affected shareholders who were misled by the defendants' alleged misrepresentations or omissions regarding the company's true financial condition or business operations.
Reynolds v. Kalshi Inc.
Consumers are suing Kalshi, an event contracts and prediction market platform, alleging the company violated their rights in connection with contracts or agreements entered into on the platform. The plaintiffs claim Kalshi failed to uphold its obligations under the terms governing user accounts and trading activity. The lawsuit is brought as a class action, meaning the named plaintiff, Reynolds, seeks to represent a broader group of similarly situated customers who used Kalshi's platform and were allegedly harmed in the same way. The case is filed in federal court based on diversity of citizenship, suggesting the parties are from different states and the amount in dispute exceeds the federal threshold. Specific details about the proposed class definition and the precise contractual breaches alleged are central to the claims.
Willets v. Sysco Corporation
Consumers are suing Sysco Corporation, one of the largest food distribution companies in the United States, alleging they were harmed by the company's conduct related to its products or services. The lawsuit was filed as a diversity action in federal court, suggesting the plaintiffs and defendant are from different states and the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000. The case is classified as a personal injury matter, which in consumer class action contexts often encompasses physical harm or illness allegedly caused by a company's products. The proposed class likely consists of individuals who purchased or were exposed to Sysco's food products and suffered similar injuries or damages. Specific details about the nature of the alleged harm and the full scope of the proposed class are expected to be outlined in the formal complaint.
Thurber v. Amazon, Inc.
Consumers are suing Amazon, alleging the company engaged in improper conduct related to personal property in a way that harmed buyers. The plaintiffs claim that Amazon's practices caused financial or material harm to customers who purchased products or services through its platform. The proposed class likely consists of customers across the United States who were similarly affected by the alleged conduct during a defined time period. Because specific complaint details are limited in the filing information provided, the precise nature of the harm — whether related to damaged goods, unauthorized charges, deceptive product listings, or another issue — is not fully specified, but the lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all affected consumers under diversity jurisdiction in federal court.
Figueroa Rodriguez v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
Consumers are suing Experian, one of the largest credit reporting agencies in the United States, alleging that the company mishandled their personal and financial information. The plaintiff, Figueroa Rodriguez, brings this case on behalf of a proposed class of individuals whose sensitive data was allegedly compromised or improperly handled by Experian. Credit reporting agencies collect and store extensive personal information including Social Security numbers, credit histories, addresses, and employment records, making them a significant target for data breaches and privacy violations. The lawsuit seeks to hold Experian accountable for failing to adequately protect consumer data and to obtain relief for all affected individuals whose personal information may have been exposed or misused as a result of the company's alleged conduct.
v. Cecil
Plaintiffs have filed a federal securities class action lawsuit against Cecil, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The case involves claims that Cecil engaged in conduct that harmed investors or consumers in connection with securities or financial instruments. The plaintiffs contend that they suffered financial losses as a result of the defendant's alleged misconduct, which may include misrepresentations, omissions, or other deceptive practices related to securities transactions or investments. The proposed class likely consists of individuals who purchased, sold, or otherwise held securities or financial products associated with Cecil during a defined period and who experienced damages as a direct result of the alleged violations. The specific nature of the securities at issue and the full scope of the alleged wrongdoing will be further defined as the litigation proceeds.
Hudson v. Thryv, Inc.
Consumers are suing Thryv, a business software and marketing services company, alleging that the company enrolled customers in automatically renewing subscription plans without clearly disclosing the auto-renewal terms before purchase. The plaintiffs claim that Thryv failed to adequately inform customers that their subscriptions would automatically renew and that charges would continue unless they actively cancelled. Customers who tried to cancel allege they faced difficulties doing so and were charged for additional billing periods they did not intend to authorize. The proposed class includes consumers across the United States who purchased Thryv subscription services and were subjected to these allegedly undisclosed or insufficiently disclosed automatic renewal practices, resulting in unwanted charges to their accounts.
Hinton v. Don't Run Out, Inc. d/b/a Public Goods
This lawsuit was filed against Public Goods, a consumer goods company that sells household and personal care products, primarily through a membership-based model. The plaintiff, Hinton, alleges that Public Goods engaged in improper practices related to its subscription or membership program, likely involving automatic renewal charges that were not adequately disclosed to customers. The lawsuit suggests that consumers were signed up for recurring charges without clear notice or proper consent, resulting in unexpected fees on their accounts. The proposed class would likely include customers who signed up for a Public Goods membership or subscription and were subsequently charged recurring fees without receiving adequate prior disclosure about the automatic renewal terms and conditions.
Scottini v. Terran Orbital Corporation
Investors are suing Terran Orbital, a satellite manufacturer and space technology company, alleging that the company and its executives made misleading or false statements to the investing public. The plaintiffs claim that Terran Orbital painted an overly optimistic picture of its business, finances, and prospects, causing investors to purchase the company's securities at artificially inflated prices. When the true state of the company's affairs allegedly became known, the stock price dropped, causing financial harm to shareholders. The proposed class includes individuals and entities who purchased or acquired Terran Orbital securities during a specific period and suffered losses as a result of the alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by the company.
Roach v. Instructure Inc
This lawsuit targets Instructure, the company behind the Canvas learning management system widely used by schools and universities. The plaintiff alleges that Instructure improperly collected, used, or shared personal data belonging to students and other users without proper consent or in violation of applicable privacy laws. The case suggests that Instructure's data practices went beyond what users were informed about or agreed to, potentially exposing sensitive educational and personal information. The proposed class likely includes students, parents, or other individuals whose personal information was handled by Instructure's platform in an unauthorized or unlawful manner. The plaintiff seeks to hold the company accountable for these alleged privacy violations and to obtain relief on behalf of all similarly affected individuals.
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.