Recent filings
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.
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.