260210.mbx

260210.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 10, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 29 Headlines ALLIANCE DATA: Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit ALTA 9600: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Lucius Alleges BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Faces Class Suit Over Engine Oil Filter Defect BBC GLOBAL: Chisholm Sues Over Data Privacy Violations BELLRING BRANDS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 23 BLACK ENTERPRISE: Barajas Sues Over Data Privacy Violations BLOCK INC: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Two Compliance Lawsuits BLOOMINGTON SHUTTLE: Miller Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA BOEHME LOGISTICS: Removes Branson Suit to N.D. Calif. BOUQS OPCO: Removes Zerfas Class Suit to W.D. Wash. CLEANER'S SUPPLY: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CLINIQUE LABORATORIES: Faces Class Suit Over Sunscreen's False Ads CUTLERY AND MORE: Tesch Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind DAVA MARKETING: Court Denies Bid to Allow Website for Collective DONG BANG: Lee Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action EIGHTFOLD AI: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Collection ELIGO ENERGY: Brous Suit Seeks to Certify Customer Class EMBRACE PET: Faces Rime Class Suit Over Illegal Drip Pricing EPIC LANDSCAPE: Court Partially OKs Bid for FLSA Notice in "Gomez" FEEDERS SUPPLY: Monhollen Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Michigan FLYING FOOD GROUP: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FORD MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Miller Suit Due May 29 FORD MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Nelson Suit Due May 29 FORWARD AIR SERVICES: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Cuts Atty's Fees Award in "Wilson" GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.8MM HEATHER HILL PROPERTY: Court Denies Certification Bid in "Hall" HILIFEVITAMINS INC: Orcel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HONDA MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Vehicle Front Camera Failures ICON CLINICAL: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Stewart Suit Says INUVO INC: Announces Receipt of $6.2MM Class Action Settlement IOWA HEALTH: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Harrison Suit Alleges JJ WHITE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Stroup Alleges JOCKO FUEL: Protein Shake Contains Cadmium, Clemente Alleges KANNO ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind KELLER WILLIAMS: Agrees to Settle Homebuyer Class Suit for $20MM LEDRA BRANDS: Adams Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA LEGACY HEALTH: Class Settlement Ends Alleged Data Tracking Lawsuit LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to April 10 MINKY COUTURE: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MONSANTO COMPANY: Holmes Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Jordan Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Mezo Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Shinpaugh Sues Over Wrongful Sale & Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Simmons Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale MOULINAS LLC: Rosales Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA NEWMONT CADIA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Contamination Claims NOUVEAU ESSENTIALS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Opresti Due July 13 PANERA BRANDS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cardin Alleges PERSONIFY HEALTH: Blalock Sues Over Data Privacy Violations PG&E COMPANY: Small Business Owners Sue Over Power Outages PICARD MEDICAL: Faces Securities Suit Over Pump-and-Dump Scheme PLUG POWER: Faces Ortolani Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop PREMIER NUTRITION: Settles Supplements' False Ads Suit for $19.16MM RICHTECH ROBOTICS: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations RISE & EXPAND: Rice Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SAN FRANCISCO: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Hidden Ticket Junk Fees SERENA UZIYEL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Says SNAP INC: Scrapes Content from YouTube to Train AI, Lawsuit Claims SOUTHERN NEW: Wright Sues Over Data Privacy Violations SPRING FOOTWEAR: Cruz Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind STATEN ISLAND: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Compromised Data THRASIO LLC: Recalls Enzyme Stain Removers Due to Infection Risk UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ghannoum Suit Seeks Drivers' Unpaid Wages UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Carter Says UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Clark Says USRX LLC: Cruz Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind VIKING GROUP: Removes Wallace Suit to W.D. Wash. WYOMING: Faces Parkhurst Class Action Suit Over Prisoner Deaths ********* ALLIANCE DATA: Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lexology reports that on January 21, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio of a putative securities class action against a financial services company (the "Company") and three of its officers (collectively, the "Defendants"). Newtyn Partners, LP v. Alliance Data Sys. Corp., No. 25-3313 (6th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026). Plaintiff alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5(b), as well as claims of scheme liability pursuant to Rules 10b-5(a) and (c). Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants misled investors by projecting a "stable client base" and "deep, long-standing relationships" for its loyalty rewards program, which the Company spun off (the "Loyalty Program"), even as sponsors indicated or were at risk of indicating their intent to terminate their sponsorships. The Court's decision, which affirmed the district court's dismissal, confirmed the Sixth Circuit's holdings that generalized statements by a company cannot be labelled half-truths simply because the company does not also disclose specific, potentially contrary information and that risk disclosures are inherently forward looking and thus do not convey information about current conditions. The Company spun off the Loyalty Program in 2021. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants made misleading statements during the spinoff regarding the Loyalty Program's client base despite the risk of allegedly significant client departures. The crux of Plaintiff's claim was that Defendants' statements about the Loyalty Program's "stable client base" and "deep, long-standing relationships" were "half-truths" because they omitted key context about clients who were considering terminating partnerships. The Company's risk disclosures also allegedly stated that the loss of any of the Loyalty Program's top ten clients would have a significant impact on revenue, which Plaintiff contended was misleading because it implied that the risk was a possibility when it already had materialized. The Court did not agree that Defendants' statements were misleading half-truths, noting that a statement cannot be a misleading half-truth when "the words spoken and the facts omitted operate on different levels of generality" and "that the omitted facts must have a reasonably close fit to what defendants disclosed." Here, Defendants made generic statements about a stable client base which the Court described as loosely optimistic, high-level remarks that would not have created inferences regarding specific contractual relationships for reasonable investors. These general optimistic statements did not require Defendants to disclose the specific contractual terms with clients who were at risk of terminating their partnerships and, therefore, the upbeat statements were not misleading half-truths. The Court also rejected Plaintiff's argument that the Company's risk disclosures were misleading, noting that risk disclosures are inherently forward-looking and do not communicate anything about current conditions: cautionary statements that a loss "could" occur do not imply that losses have not yet occurred. Applying these principles, the Court found statements about the Loyalty Program's stable client base and its deep, long-standing relationships were either accurate historical facts or nonactionable puffery, especially when read alongside cautionary language about competition, finite contract terms, and potential sponsor attrition. The Court then noted that, even if Plaintiff adequately pled falsity, it did not adequately plead scienter. The Court found competing, innocent inferences—such as that negotiations with sponsors remained ongoing and that sponsors had not yet determined to leave—more cogent and compelling than an inference of intent to defraud. In reaching these conclusions, the Court held that allegations Plaintiff drew from a complaint in a separate action should not "significantly contribute" to the analysis because they were not based on Plaintiff's personal knowledge. The Court also found that Plaintiff's allegations that Defendants had financial incentives to defraud investors were not compelling because, among other things, the Company would continue to hold 19% of the spinoff. Finally, because Plaintiff failed to plead a primary 10b-5(b) violation or scienter, its "scheme liability" theory under Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) also failed, as did its Section 20(a) control-person claim for lack of an underlying violation. The Court therefore affirmed the district court's dismissal in full. [GN] ALTA 9600: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Lucius Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ WINDY LUCIUS, v. ALTA 9600 PHASE I, LLC, d/b/a Crest at Pinecrest, Case No. 1:26-cv-20691 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 2, 2026) is a class action suing Alta for injunctive relief, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The Plaintiff is legally blind, and substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, including, but not limited to, seeing, accurately visualizing her world, and adequately traversing obstacles. The Plaintiff uses the internet to help her navigate a world of goods, products and services like the sighted. The internet and websites provide her with a window into the world that she would not otherwise have. She sues Defendants for offering and maintaining a website that is not fully accessible and independently usable by visually impaired consumers. The Defendant operates and promotes its residential apartments community through its commercial website https://crestmiami.com/. The website is interactive and transactional in nature, allowing users - including residents of Florida - to access essential information regarding Defendant's rental community including location, business hours, floor plans, pricing, and community features; to schedule in-person or take a virtual tours; check availability; apply to lease unit(s) and contact Crest at Pinecrest directly. The website serves as a central platform for marketing, customer engagement, and online leasing-related transactions, and is fully integrated with Defendant's brick-and-mortar residential operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 220 Miami, Florida 33156 Telephone: (305) 351-2014 E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Faces Class Suit Over Engine Oil Filter Defect ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that several 2014-2021 BMW and MINI vehicle models are equipped with a faulty engine oil filter housing prone to premature failure, and that the automaker has known of the issue for years but failed to disclose it to consumers. The 45-page defective product lawsuit says that a vehicle's engine oil filter housing, which holds the cartridge-type oil filter, should last at least 150,000 miles. However, the complaint says that the BMW and MINI vehicles at issue have polycarbonate engine oil filter housings predisposed to become "embrittled" due to repeated heating and cooling cycles, with the internal wall structures of the housing, which separate the oil and coolant passages, failing and/or warping, and the part's gaskets, which seal the oil and water passages, also failing prematurely. When this occurs, engine coolant can either leak into the oil sump, or drain externally, which can cause engine overheating and/or failure, the suit states. The filing says that failure of the BMW engine oil filter housing can require repairs that reportedly cost anywhere from $2,000 to more than $3,500. The suit alleges that BMW has known of the problems with its polycarbonate engine oil filter housings since at least late 2013 or early 2014, a few short years after the automaker began to phase out cast aluminum engine oil filter housings to lower production costs. Although BMW in 2021 introduced a "half measure" design update to address internal problems with the polycarbonate engine oil filter housing, the case says, the automaker "knew or should have known" that the stopgap measure would not fix or correct the "inherent structural weakness" of the new engine oil filter housing. "Defendants purposefully ignored this polycarbonate class engine oil filter housing defect for years in order to avoid substantial costs associated with remedying these defects under warranty or conducting another service action," the complaint alleges. According to the class action lawsuit, the cars at issue (the class vehicles) include 2014-2021 model year BMW and MINI vehicles, including the 1 Series, 2 Series, 3 Series, 4 Series, 5 Series, X1, X2, X3, X4, MINI Cooper, Clubman and Countryman, equipped with a B46, B48 and/or B58 engine. The plaintiffs are a group of United States residents whose class vehicles allegedly experienced an engine oil filter housing failure between 60,000 and 80,000 miles. Because the BMW powertrain limited warranty covers defects in materials and workmanship only up to four years or 50,000 miles, the suit says, the plaintiffs were forced to pay thousands out of pocket to remedy the issues. "Defendants acted to conceal the oil filter housing defects during the warranty period so that repair costs would be shifted to the proposed class representatives and proposed class members once the warranty expired and the oil filter housing failed," the complaint asserts. The BMW engine oil filter housing class action lawsuit looks to cover all current and former owners and lessees of any of the BMW or MINI vehicles listed on this page who purchased or leased their vehicle in the U.S. [GN] BBC GLOBAL: Chisholm Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------ CHRIS CHISHOLM; GOVIND RAMABADRAN; SERGE BELOZEROV; and DAVID RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BBC GLOBAL NEWS US, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00809 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2026) alleges violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, the Video Privacy Protection Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant violated its obligations under the VPPA, CIPA, and the Wiretap Act. It deployed the Tracking Tools on the Website. It enabled Tracking Entities to access Subscribers’ Sensitive Information. The Defendant provided no notice of the Tracking Tools. Defendant provided no disclosure regarding the scope of information shared. The Defendant failed to seek or obtain consent for the use of the Tracking Tools, says the suit. BBC Global News US, LLC operates as a media company. The Company offers television programs, magazines, home entertainment, and children's programming services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. Gary Ishimoto, Esq. Christopher V. DeVivo, 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 gishimoto@zlk.com cdevivo@zlk.com mpollack@zlk.com BELLRING BRANDS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of BellRing Brands, Inc. (NYSE: BRBR) between November 19, 2024 and August 4, 2025, both dates 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 March 23, 2026. SO WHAT: If you purchased BellRing 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 BellRing class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=51444 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 March 23, 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, BellRing develops, markets, and sells "convenient nutrition" products such as ready-to-drink ("RTD") protein shakes primarily under the brand name Premier Protein. During the Class Period, defendants represented that sales growth reflected increased end-consumer demand, attributing results to "organic growth," "distribution gains," "incremental promotional activity," and "[s]trong macro tailwinds around protein" among other factors. At the same time, defendants downplayed the impact of competition on demand, insisting BellRing was not experiencing any significant changes in competition, and that in the RTD category particularly, BellRing possessed a "competitive moat," given that "the ready-to-drink category is just highly complex" and the products are "hard to formulate." As alleged, in truth, BellRing's reported sales during the Class Period were driven by its key customers stockpiling inventory and did not reflect increased end-consumer demand or brand momentum. Following the destocking, BellRing admitted that competitive pressures were materially weakening demand. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the BellRing class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=51444 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. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 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] BLACK ENTERPRISE: Barajas Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- MARIELA BARAJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLACK ENTERPRISE/GREENWICH STREET CORPORATE GROWTH INVESTORS, LLC d/b/a BLACK ENTERPRISE; BLACK ENTERPRISE/GREENWICH STREET CORPORATE GROWTH PARTNERS, L.P. d/b/a BLACK ENTERPRISE; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00654 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2026) alleges violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants use data broker software on their website -- https://www.blackenterprise.com -- to secretly collect data about a Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website user. The Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent is a violation of the California Trap and Trace Law, says the suit. Black Enterprise/Greenwich Street Corporate Growth Partners, L.P. operates as a private equity firm. The Company seeks to finance minority owned and managed businesses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Robert Tauler, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 90 Broad St., Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 702-8670 Tel: (213) 927-9270 Email: eshapiro@taulersmith.com rtauler@taulersmith.com BLOCK INC: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Two Compliance Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- ABA Banking Journal reports that whether Block Inc. made materially misleading disclosures in violation of federal securities laws and whether its directors and officers failed to properly oversee compliance risks tied to Cash App. Case Summary: Judge Noel Wise of the Northern District of California refused to dismiss two lawsuits against Block Inc., alleging its executives and board members failed to properly oversee its compliance program. In January 2025, NYC Funds, a group of New York retirement pension funds (Plaintiffs), sued Block Inc. and two of its executives, Jack Dorsey and Amrita Ahuja, in a putative securities-fraud class action. Plaintiffs claimed that Block, the parent company of Cash App, made false and misleading statements about Cash App's compliance program that hid regulatory weaknesses and risks. Plaintiffs also alleged these statements triggered enforcement actions and contributed to an 84% drop in Block's stock price. Plaintiffs claimed Block and its executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, which bar material misstatements, omissions, and deceptive practices in securities transactions. On July 30, 2025, Block moved to dismiss. In February 2025, Block shareholders separately sued several current and former directors and officers of Block (The Individual Defendants), along with the company itself, alleging failures in oversight of compliance risks tied to Cash App. The shareholders alleged Block pursued rapid user growth through "frictionless onboarding" that required minimal customer information and enabled fraud and other criminal activity. The shareholders further claimed the board and its Audit and Risk Committee received repeated warnings about rising suspicious activity reports and growing compliance backlogs yet failed to expand the company's compliance program as Cash App's growth continued. On July 28, 2025, Block moved to dismiss the complaint for forum non conveniens. This common-law doctrine permits a court to dismiss a case, even when jurisdiction and venue are proper, if a more convenient forum exists. The Individual Defendants separately moved to dismiss for failure to plead demand futility and failure to state a claim. Class Action Suit Judge Wise rejected Block's arguments that the complaint failed to plead falsity, scienter, and loss causation under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The court found that Plaintiffs adequately alleged that Block made misleading statements and omissions about the strength of its compliance program and the accuracy of Cash App user metrics. According to the court, the complaint described a clear gap between Block's public assurances and its internal practices, including under-resourced compliance systems, growing backlogs of unresolved alerts, and lax onboarding that allowed fraudulent accounts to inflate reported user growth. The court also concluded these alleged misstatements were material to investors and plausibly linked to stock price declines after corrective disclosures. The court also determined that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged scienter by showing that senior executives, including Jack Dorsey and Amrita Ahuja, had access to internal reports and warnings about compliance failures and inflated metrics but continued to promote growth and user figures publicly. Taken together, these allegations supported a strong inference that defendants acted knowingly or with deliberate recklessness. The court also concluded Plaintiffs adequately alleged loss causation by tying the disclosure of the alleged misconduct to a sharp drop in Block's stock price. Because Plaintiffs stated a viable primary securities-fraud claim, the court allowed the Section 20(a) control-person claims against Dorsey and Ahuja to proceed and denied the motions to dismiss in full. Shareholders Suit Judge Wise rejected Block's argument that the forum-selection clause in its amended and restated bylaws required dismissal of the case for forum non convenience in favor of the Delaware Court of Chancery. Block argued that its amended and restated bylaws governed the shareholders' action and mandated Delaware as the proper forum. But the court held that the clause excludes claims brought under the Exchange Act and that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over those claims. Because the shareholders' Exchange Act claims predominated, the court concluded that the forum-selection clause did not apply and denied Block's motion to dismiss. The court also denied the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to plead demand futility and failure to state a claim. The shareholders alleged that the Individual Defendants faced a substantial likelihood of liability for breaching their oversight obligations under Caremark. A Caremark claim is a shareholder derivative action alleging that directors breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by failing to implement or monitor adequate internal compliance and reporting systems. The court held that the shareholders adequately alleged particularized facts showing that directors, despite having reporting systems in place, consciously failed to monitor or oversee compliance risks and thus remained uninformed of serious problems. Based on the alleged failure to respond to compliance red flags at Cash App, the court concluded that a majority of the board faced a substantial likelihood of liability, allowing the fiduciary duty, Exchange Act, and insider trading claims to proceed. Bottom Line: The court allowed the securities-fraud and shareholder derivative cases against Block to proceed, finding that plaintiffs plausibly alleged misleading disclosures and compliance oversight failures at Cash App and rejecting Block's forum-selection and demand-futility arguments. [GN] BLOOMINGTON SHUTTLE: Miller Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- ORPHEUS MILLER, JR., individually and on behalf of those similarly-situated v. BLOOMINGTON SHUTTLE SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00215-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., Feb. 2, 2026) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs earned overtime wages. The Defendant failed to pay drivers in accordance with the federal overtime wage laws. The FLSA claims are brought as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). In the alternative, Plaintiff Miller brings this action against Defendant pursuant to the Indiana Minimum Wage and Wage Payment Statutes. The Plaintiff resides in Indianapolis. He was employed by the Defendant during the three year period prior to the filing of this Complaint. He was an 'employee' as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. section 203(e)(1). The Plaintiff and the Class are current and former employees of Defendant, who were shuttle drivers and worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week. The Defendant provides intrastate shuttle service in the greater Indianapolis area. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher S. Wolcott, Esq. The Wolcott Law Firm LLC 450 East 96th Street Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Telephone: (317) 500-0700 Facsimile: (317) 342-2799 E-mail: Indy2buck@hotmail.com BOEHME LOGISTICS: Removes Branson Suit to N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of BRIAN BRANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOEHME LOGISTICS LLC; ONTRAC LOGISTICS, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa (Case No. C25-03499) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 26, 2026. The clerk of court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00835. The case is assigned to Judge Alex G. Tse. Boehme Logistics LLC is a trucking company based in Anderson, California. [BN] Damian M. Moos, Esq. John V. Little, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (949) 800-8601 Facsimile: (626) 795-4790 Email: dmoos@scopelitis.com jlittle@scopelitis.com BOUQS OPCO: Removes Zerfas Class Suit to W.D. Wash. --------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of LINDSAY ZERFAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BOUQS OPCO, LLC, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King (Case No. 25-2-39394-1) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 27, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00305 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Kymberly K. Evanson. The Bouqs Co includes the sale of flowers through an online platform. The Company offers occasion flowers, carnations, ecalyptus, gerberas, gypsophilia, lilies, phlox, roses, snapdragons, solidago, sprays, and veronica flowers. [BN] 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 Email: tyler@mfseattle.com ariel@mfseattle.com - and - Mark A. Silver, Esq. Leanne Sunderland, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 303 Peachtree Rd NE, Suite 5300 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone (404) 527-4000 Email: mark.silver@dentons.com leanne.sunderland@dentons.com CLEANER'S SUPPLY: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEANER'S SUPPLY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04023-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., Jan. 27, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://wawak.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. Cleaner's Supply, Inc. specializes in providing a wide range of dry cleaning supplies, tailoring materials, and laundromat products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law CLINIQUE LABORATORIES: Faces Class Suit Over Sunscreen's False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Maria Krasnova filed a class action lawsuit against Clinique Laboratories LLC. Why: Krasnova claims Clinique falsely advertises its sunscreen as providing a higher SPF than it actually does. Where: The Clinique sunscreen class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Clinique of falsely advertising its sunscreen as providing a higher SPF than it actually does. Plaintiff Maria Krasnova filed the class action complaint against Clinique Laboratories on Dec. 29 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to allegations made in her class action lawsuit, Clinique falsely advertises its "Broad Spectrum SPF 50 Mineral Sunscreen Fluid for Face" as providing SPF 50 protection, even though it only provides SPF 26 protection. Krasnova claims that independent lab testing revealed the sunscreen offers "far less" protection than advertised, deceiving consumers into paying a premium for a product that does not deliver the promised sun protection. "Defendant's practices of falsely, deceptively and misleadingly representing that the product provides SPF protection of 50 . . . induced the plaintiff and numerous other consumers into either purchasing a product they otherwise would not have purchased at all, or paying significantly more for a product than they would have paid had it been labeled, distributed, advertised and promoted with accurate SPF representations," the Clinique class action lawsuit alleges. Class action: Clinique misleads consumers about sunscreen's effectiveness Krasnova claims she purchased the Clinique sunscreen from Macy's website for $25.90, relying on the SPF 50 claim. She says she would not have bought the product, or would have paid less, had she known the true SPF rating. The class action lawsuit alleges that Clinique's false advertising not only misleads consumers but also poses potential health risks by giving them a false sense of security about the level of sun protection they are receiving. Krasnova looks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased Clinique's SPF 50 Mineral Sunscreen Fluid for Face. She is suing for unjust enrichment, unfair competition, false advertising, breach of warranty, fraud and negligent misrepresentation and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. This is not the first time a sunscreen brand has faced legal action over SPF claims. In 2025, consumers sued Sun Bum LLC, alleging the company falsely advertised the SPF level of its mineral sunscreen lotion. The plaintiff is represented by Frank S. Hedin of Hedin LLP. The Clinique sunscreen class action lawsuit is Krasnova v. Clinique Laboratories LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02060, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. [GN] CUTLERY AND MORE: Tesch Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY TESCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CUTLERY AND MORE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00102 (N.D. Ind., Jan. 27, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://cutleryandmore.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. Cutlery and More, LLC is an online retailer and specialty store focusing on kitchen knives, cutlery, and cookware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law DAVA MARKETING: Court Denies Bid to Allow Website for Collective ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Austin Cook, Harrison Follett, Charlie Allen, Sophie Sanders, Thomas Bartell, Justin Roberts, Carson McMaster, Alonso Barrantes, Brady Perkins, Jeremy Thompson, Paige Ludden, Keaton Hales, Trooper Johnson, Ryan Grimmius, Aidan Walsh, and Ryan Hadley, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dava Marketing, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00632-DBB (D. Utah), District Judge David Barlow of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Notice Language for FLSA Collective and denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Allow Website for Collective. This case involves allegations of FLSA overtime violations by Plaintiffs and other prospective collective action members against Defendant Dava Marketing, LLC. On December 8, 2025, the court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a FLSA collective action. The court conditionally certified a collective action with the following definition: All current and former employees who were paid by DAVA on an hourly basis to sell, design, and edit videos and manage online and social media content for DAVA Marketing LLC in the United States during the applicable limitations period and who worked more than forty hours in any workweek. The court approved Plaintiffs' request to send notice to prospective collective members via mail, email, and text message. Plaintiffs' request for a notice website was denied without prejudice in the absence of specific website language and justification. The parties were unable to reach an agreement, resulting in the motions for approval currently before the court. Plaintiffs requested an order allowing a dedicated website as part of the notice procedure for prospective collective participants. They proposed a website unique to this action that would allow collective members to input a PIN and Access ID to learn more about the case and opt in. Plaintiffs argued that such a website would greatly facilitate the ability of prospective collective members to make informed decisions and to opt in. Defendant responded that the motion still did not provide any justification for why a website is necessary. The court agreed that Plaintiffs have not shown why a website is necessary in this case. Plaintiffs' sole explanation for why a website would increase notice sufficiency is that it would be more compatible with the electronic world of computers, smart phones, email, text and web communications. The court noted it has already approved both email and text notice procedures in addition to regular mail. Potential collective members who rely on electronic communication will be alerted about the collective action via text message and can electronically send their opt-in forms via email. The addition of a website does not appear to streamline or simplify the process in any meaningful way. Plaintiffs' renewed request for a website was denied. Plaintiffs proposed language indicating that any claim that accrued after September 14, 2020, may be valid. Defendant responded that all claims that accrued after November 9, 2021, are barred. The initial Complaint was filed on September 14, 2023. On December 12, 2023, the court entered an order staying the case as of December 4, 2023, and tolling all deadlines and statutes of limitations for all parties and potential collective members during the stay. On January 29, 2025, the court lifted the stay and stopped the tolling of the statute of limitations as of the date of the order. The court stated that the statute of limitations continues to run for all potential collective action members until their consent to join is actually filed with the court. The FLSA provides no automatic tolling mechanism for such prospective collective members. The statute of limitations was tolled for a 422-day period while the case was stayed. Therefore, for potential collective members who have not yet filed their consent to join this lawsuit, only claims that accrued within the last three years and 422 days may be brought. The Original Notice proposal was approved with changes. The court made the edits identified in its Conditional Certification Order, changed some language to reflect the court's definition of the collective, removed any references to a website or statute of limitations date, and corrected minor typographical errors. Plaintiffs' Amended Consent Form proposal was approved. The court approved Plaintiffs' proposed email notice text with the exception of one sentence about a claim website. The court approved Plaintiffs' proposed text notice with the exception of any reference to a claim website. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Allow Website for Collective was denied. Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Notice Language for FLSA Collective was granted in part pending the ordered changes. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oaVQ9A from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Dava Marketing LLC Represented By: Rod N. Andreason Kirton McConkie randreason@kmclaw.com Christopher M. Sanders Kirton McConkie csanders@kmclaw.com Plaintiff Austin Cook Represented By: Jeanne D. Marshall 801-328-4820 jeanne.d.marshall@gmail.com Randall K. Edwards Randall K. Edwards PLLC 801-328-0300 randall@randallkedwards.com Plaintiff Harrison Follett Represented By: Jeanne D. Marshall 801-328-4820 jeanne.d.marshall@gmail.com Randall K. Edwards Randall K. Edwards PLLC 801-328-0300 randall@randallkedwards.com DONG BANG: Lee Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YU JUNG LEE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DONG BANG CORPORATION, MI JA KIM, JOO HEE KIM and SANG KYU KIM, Case No. 2:22-cv-01336-MEF-SDA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court before the Honorable Stace D. Adams, U.S.M.J., of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, for an Order certifying this action as a class action. Dong Bang was founded in 1977. The company's line of business includes manufacturing fluid power cylinders and actuators. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wXaJ28 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Kim, Esq. RYAN KIM LAW, P.C. 222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Telephone: (718) 573-1111 E-mail: ryan@ryankimlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sean Kwak, Esq. KIM, LIM & PARTNERS 460 Bergen Blvd. Suite 305 Palisades Park, NJ 07650 E-mail: seankwak@klplawyers.com EIGHTFOLD AI: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims Eightfold AI has unlawfully used its proprietary technology to collect job applicants' personal information and craft candidacy profiles and rankings for employers, all without individuals' knowledge or consent. The 35-page lawsuit contends that, through its proprietary large language model (LLM), Eightfold AI collects information on job applicants based on "billions of data points" across the internet in order to create detailed candidacy reports for employers. According to the complaint, the software company's AI technology gleans data from sources that go far beyond the information submitted on the job application itself, such as social media, location details, internet activity, device information and browser cookies. The case alleges that based on this information, the AI technology then ranks the job applicant on a scale of 0 to 5, reflecting how apt the candidate may be for the position and drawing on factors like work history, projected career trajectory, personal characteristics and more. This subjective determination is at no point made visible to the candidate, nor do they have the opportunity to opt out of the data collection process without compromising the application itself, the case claims. The lawsuit alleges that Eightfold's practices have violated consumer protection statutes -- namely, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) -- designed to protect individuals from inaccurate or incomplete consumer reports being used in employment decisions. Per the filing, the laws refer not only to the provision and use of credit reports, which may detail an individual's debt history, but also those that contain data about a "person's habits, morals, and life experiences." "These are the kinds of reports that can have devastating consequences for people's jobs," the suit says. Though the FCRA and ICRAA were enacted prior to the emergence of artificial intelligence, both pieces of legislation were formulated to give consumers control over the information that determines their access to employment and credit-building opportunities, the case states. The FCRA, in particular, was amended by Congress in 1996 to recognize the importance of job applicants' privacy rights, specifically in light of the rapid expansion of the internet, the suit adds. " . . . [E]mployers violate the FCRA when they use consumer reports to make adverse employment decisions without first providing the applicant and/or employee who is the subject of the report with sufficient and timely notification of its intent to take an adverse action and a copy of the report," the complaint relays. The plaintiffs, two California residents, claim that Eightfold AI has inhibited them from progressing further in the job application process and receiving employment opportunities at major companies that utilize its technology, including Microsoft and PayPal, despite their qualifications and respective industry experience. Per the lawsuit, both plaintiffs completed job applications on websites whose URLs included "Eightfold.AI." Neither plaintiff was asked to interview or proceed further in their respective job application processes, the suit says. The case asserts that the plaintiffs were not provided with a copy of their report information and a description of their rights, including their right to dispute or correct the data, in violation of the FCRA and ICRAA. The Eightfold AI class action lawsuit seeks to represent all United States residents who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, applied to jobs in the U.S. and were subject to the company's evaluation tools as part of their application for employment. [GN] ELIGO ENERGY: Brous Suit Seeks to Certify Customer Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNE BROUS, AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF IRA BROUS and MICHELLE SCHUSTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ELIGO ENERGY, LLC and ELIGO ENERGY NY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01260-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. "All New York Eligo customers who were charged a variable rate for electricity under the 2013, 2016, and 2017 Eligo New York Terms of Service any time from November 4, 2018, through and including the date of judgment." Excluded from the Class are the officers and directors of Defendants, members of the immediate families of the officers and directors of Defendants, and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which they have or have had a controlling interest, all federal, state and local government entities and any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order: (1) Designating Named Plaintiffs Michelle Schuster and Anne Brous as Class Representatives; (2) Appointing Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP and Wittels McInturff Palikovic as co-Class Counsel; (3) Directing Defendants to produce a class list to Class Counsel within 30 days of the Order certifying the Class; (4) Directing Plaintiffs to submit a proposed plan for providing notice of class action certification in accordance Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) within 30 days of the Order certifying the Class; and (5) For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Pursuant to the Court’s January 21, 2026, Order, Defendants will file their opposition brief by March 13, 2026, and Plaintiffs will file a reply brief by April 13, 2026. Eligo operates as a retail energy supplier company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lHD9nU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Daniel J. Martin, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com dmartin@fbfglaw.com - and - J. Burkett McInturff, Esq. Andrey Belenky, Esq. Ethan D. Roman, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (914) 775-8862 E-mail: jbm@wittelslaw.com abelenky@wittelslaw.com edr@wittelslaw.com EMBRACE PET: Faces Rime Class Suit Over Illegal Drip Pricing ------------------------------------------------------------ LINDA RIME, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMBRACE PET INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-00460 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal business conduct. The suit arises after customers commit to the quote process by entering information about their pet and customizing their deductible and premium. Embrace quotes them a 'Total' monthly price for the insurance, but in truth, it's not the total in violation of California law. In the final step of the checkout process, Embrace tags on a $25 'administrative' junk fee, and a $1 per month junk fee for monthly billing. At this point, consumers are committed to the process and just eat the junk fees, rather than shopping around in violation of the law, the Plaintiff contends. Embrace is a pet insurance company. It enrolls customers via its website, www.embracepetinsurance.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Stephen Ferruolo, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com sferruolo@dovel.com EPIC LANDSCAPE: Court Partially OKs Bid for FLSA Notice in "Gomez" ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Jose Gonzalez Gomez, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Epic Landscape Productions, L.C., et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-2198-JAR-ADM (D. Kan.), Judge Julie A. Robinson of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted in part, denied in part, and found moot in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing Further FLSA Notices. Plaintiffs and those similarly situated seek overtime compensation in this collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class action under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing Further FLSA Notices. The motion is fully briefed and the Court is prepared to rule. The Court conditionally certified the following collective in this matter on April 28, 2023: All current and former lawn and landscape workers, who worked for the Defendants at any time from April 28, 2020 through April 27, 2023. The Court approved the notice form on May 18, 2023. The Notice gave putative members of the collective 45 days from the date of mailing to postmark and return their completed and signed Consent to Join Forms to Plaintiffs' counsel. On October 29, 2024, the Court granted final collective action certification and denied Defendants' motion to decertify on the basis that certain FLSA exemptions applied to members of the collective and that they were not similarly situated. The Court also granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify three different classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on Plaintiffs' state-law claims. Plaintiffs assert that when they compared the notice lists that Defendants produced to them after each of the Court's certification orders, they noticed discrepancies and suspected that both class lists that Defendants provided were incomplete. Plaintiffs ask the Court to allow supplemental notices to be sent to several potential members of the collective who should have but did not receive notice after the Court conditionally certified the collective. Plaintiffs identify two batches of individuals they claim should have been provided with notice after the collective was conditionally certified, but were not. The parties agree that 19 individuals must receive notice of their right to opt in to this collective action because they were incorrectly omitted from the list that was used to send notices in 2023. The parties dispute whether 7 individuals fall within the scope of the class definition and should receive notice. The remaining 16 individuals identified on Plaintiffs' lists need not receive notice because they have either already received a notice, are named plaintiffs, or have consented to join the collective. Defendants contend that the 7 disputed individuals are current or former mechanics, not current or former lawn or landscape workers. The Court found that neither the evidence provided at summary judgment, nor the evidence submitted on this motion demonstrates that the mechanics' work involved performing manual lawn and landscape duties; thus, they are not entitled to receive a re-issued notice to opt in to this lawsuit. The statute of limitations for FLSA actions is two years after accrual, unless the cause of action arises out of a willful violation, in which case it is three years. Although the Tenth Circuit has not addressed whether equitable tolling applies in the FLSA collective action context, district courts in this Circuit uniformly have agreed that tolling can, in some circumstances, apply. The Court agrees with the parties that equitable tolling is appropriate for the 19 employees who should have but did not receive notice of their right to join in this lawsuit. These individuals lacked actual notice of the lawsuit and their omission from the notice list was within Defendants' control, so the Court does not find prejudice to Defendants in equitably tolling the statute of limitations for these individuals as a remedy. The statute is therefore tolled from April 28, 2023 until 90 days after the new opt-in Plaintiffs receive this re-issued notice. Accordingly, the Court ordered that Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing Further FLSA Notices is granted in part, denied in part, and moot in part. Plaintiffs' motion is moot as to 16 individuals who have already received notice through other means, granted as to 19 individuals the parties agree should receive notice, and denied as to 7 individuals who were in dispute because they do not fall within the class definition. The Court further ordered that the previously-approved Notice shall be sent in both English and Spanish to the 19 individuals identified above by United States Postal Service first class mail, postage pre-paid, and by electronic mail, when an email address is known for a particular putative member of the collective. The Court further ordered that the statute of limitations is equitably tolled for the 19 individuals identified above from April 28, 2023 until 90 days after they receive the re-issued notice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eekpBY from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiff Charlene Hall, et al. Represented By: Jordan David Howlette Justly Prudent 202-921-6005 jordan@justlyprudent.com Defendants Heather Hill Operating Company LLC; Heather Hill Property Company LLC; OneWall Communities LLC Represented By: Hugh Jewett Marbury Cozen O’Connor 202-747-0781 hmarbury@cozen.com Nicole H. Sprinzen Cozen O’Connor 202-471-3451 nsprinzen@cozen.com FEEDERS SUPPLY: Monhollen Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Michigan ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Feeders Supply Company, LLC. The case is styled as Mable Monhollen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Feeders Supply Company, LLC doing business as: Feeders Pet Supply, Case No. 1:26-cv-00258 (W.D. Mich., Jan. 23, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Feeders Supply Company, LLC -- https://feederspetsupply.com/ -- provides a full spectrum of pet care. Services include professional grooming, washing, nail trims, and daycare. Positive dog training and pet insurance are also available.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com FLYING FOOD GROUP: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flying Food Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lilian Sanchez, Marisol Lopez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Flying Food Group, LLC, Does 1 through 10, Case No. 26STCV02771 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 27, 2026). Flying Food Group LLC -- https://flyingfood.com/ -- is a U.S. based and owned company providing authentic meals (fresh and shelf stable) as well as logistics and digital services to the travel and retail industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com FORD MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Miller Suit Due May 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miller v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-01796 (E.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 4, 2020), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order Expert disclosures shall be completed by March 13, 2026 Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be completed by April 10, 2026 Expert discovery shall be completed by May 8, 2026 The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification no later than May 29, 2026. All other dates and deadlines remain unchanged. The nature of suit states Contract - Contract Product Liability. Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Nelson Suit Due May 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Trevor Nelson, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 2:24-cv-02231 (E.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered a scheduling order as follows: Expert disclosures shall be completed by March 13, 2026 Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be completed by April 10, 2026 Expert discovery shall be completed by May 8, 2026 The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification no later than May 29, 2026. All other dates and deadlines remain unchanged. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Ford Motor is a global automaker, designing and manufacturing Ford cars, trucks, SUVs, and Lincoln luxury vehicles. Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.[CC] FORWARD AIR SERVICES: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Federico Hernandez, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FORWARD AIR SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; FORWARD AIR, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV25400 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 Jan. 23, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00717. The Complaint asserts the following eight causes of action: Failure to Pay All Wages; Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide All Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit All Rest Breaks; Failure to Fully Reimburse Work Expenses; Derivative Failure to Timely Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Violations of Labor Code; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alyssa S. Gjedsted, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: agjedsted@littler.com - and - Jyoti Mittal, Esq. Jonathan Russell Blakey, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: jmittal@littler.com rblakey@littler.com FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Cuts Atty's Fees Award in "Wilson" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Amber Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Frontier Communications Parent Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-01418-L (N.D. Tex.), Judge Sam A. Lindsay of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, reduced the attorneys' fees award in a class action settlement. The Court addressed Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Application for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards, filed on September 26, 2025. Class Counsel requested $1,880,000 in attorneys' fees. Class Counsel is awarded $1,410,000 for attorneys' fees, which is an 8% reduction from the 33% originally requested. These payments shall be made out of the Settlement Fund in accordance with the Agreement. At the Final Approval Hearing on November 18, 2025, the Court expressed concerns about the amount of attorneys' fees requested. According to the Joint Supplemental Declaration of Class Counsel in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Application for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards, the total lodestar for the firms participating in the prosecution of this case, from the beginning of the investigation to the filing of the Declaration, is $585,025.95. Class Counsel anticipated additional hours spent through the conclusion of the settlement process will add an additional $40,000 to the lodestar. The Court noted that district courts are not bound by agreements between parties as to the amount of attorneys' fees. The Court must scrutinize the agreed-to fees under the standards set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974). A two-step process is used to calculate reasonable attorney's fees. First, the Court calculates the lodestar, which is presumed reasonable. Second, the Court may enhance or decrease the amount after considering the twelve Johnson factors. After considering the lodestar and the Johnson factors, the Court does not find the requested award of $1,880,000 fair and reasonable; however, the Court does find an attorneys' fees award of $1,410,000 -- 25% of the Settlement Fund -- fair and reasonable. The Court can think of no cogent and reasonable argument why an amount of $1,410,000 in attorneys' fees for Class Counsel -- which is slightly over 2.4 times the lodestar amount -- does not adequately and reasonably compensate them for the services thus performed and the $40,000 or so they expect in additional fees to conclude the settlement process. The parties shall submit an amended proposed final approval order by 5:00 p.m., February 13, 2026 A copy of the Court's decision dated 3rd February, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qpjJcY from PacerMonitor.com The consolidated plaintiffs -- Richard Retter, Ian Terrell, Lori Rusk, Timothy Morgan, Lauren Morgan, Christopher Miller, Nicholas McHenry, Adrian Graham, Brian Carolus, Gerald Wilson, Brooke Smith, James Pratt, Jennifer Myers, Marcelo Muto, Allen Moure, Patrick Mays, Harry Knopp, Tracy Hargrove, Amy Delicato, Joselyn Chiong, Seth Burton, Donald Boorman, and Amber Wilson, among others -- are represented by Tyler James Bean of Siri & Glimstad LLP; Joe Kendall of Kendall Law Group; Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow PA; Bruce William Steckler of Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLC; Ronald Podolny and John A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan; Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC; Samuel M. Ward and Stephen R. Basser of Barrack Rodos & Bacine; Raina C. Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC; William Peerce Howard of The Consumer Protection Firm; Courtney Maccarone of Levi & Korsinsky LLP; Andrew J. Shamis of Shamis & Gentile PA; Katherine Marie Aizpuru of Tycko & Zavareei LLP; Jeffrey S. Goldenberg of Goldenberg Schneider LPA; Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP; James Gerard Stranch IV of Stranch Jennings & Garvey PLLC; Lynn A. Toops of Cohen & Malad LLP; Sabrina Soraya Saieh and Stephanie A. Casey of Colson Hicks Eidson; Kristina N. Kastl and Samantha M. T. Best of Kastl Law PC; and Amanda Brooke Murphy of Murphy Law Firm. GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.8MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Gryphon Healthcare has agreed to a $2,800,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit over a data breach discovered by the medical billing company in August 2024 that allegedly exposed the private information of its client’s patients to an unauthorized third party. The Gryphon Healthcare class action settlement received preliminary court approval on December 17, 2025 and covers all United States residents whose personal information was potentially exposed in the data breach, including those who received a written notice from Gryphon informing them of the cybersecurity incident. Settlement documents report that the private information of approximately 393,358 individuals may have been impacted by the data breach. The court-authorized website for the Gryphon Healthcare class action settlement can be found at GryphonHealthcareDataSettlement.com. According to the settlement site, Gryphon Healthcare settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Class members who submit with their claim form documented proof of out-of-pocket losses stemming from the breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $5,000. Per the settlement site, covered expenses include losses due to identity theft or fraud, fees for credit reports or freezing/unfreezing credit, costs to replace IDs, and postage. The agreement outlines that all claims for out-of-pocket losses must be accompanied by proof such as bank statements, invoices, or receipts. In lieu of a documented loss payment, the site reports that class members may instead file a claim to receive an alternative one-time cash payment of approximately $100. The settlement site notes that no proof or explanation is needed to claim this payment. The final amount of this cash payment may become pro-rated depending on the total number of valid claims filed, the agreement adds. In addition to monetary benefits, all settlement class members are eligible to enroll in two free years of CyEX Medical Shield Complete, which includes monitoring for health insurance ID numbers, medical record numbers, and health savings account expenditures. To submit a Gryphon Healthcare settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN as found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form from the settlement site to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator. All Gryphon Healthcare settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than April 16, 2026. Gryphon Healthcare has also agreed to implement stricter data security measures to better secure its systems and mitigate the risk of a future data breach. The court will decide whether to grant the Gryphon Healthcare settlement final approval at a hearing on August 31, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Gryphon Healthcare class action lawsuit alleged that the medical billing service provider discovered a security lapse at one of its partner organizations on August 13, 2024 that allowed an unauthorized third party to access the patient health information of Gryphon’s clients. According to the settlement site, the sensitive information potentially implicated in the breach includes names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, diagnosis information, health insurance information, prescription information, provider information and medical record numbers. [GN] HEATHER HILL PROPERTY: Court Denies Certification Bid in "Hall" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Charlene Hall v. Heather Hill Property Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00238-ABA (D. Md.), Judge Adam B. Abelson issued an order on February 3, 2026, ruling on the defendant's motion for partial dismissal. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing with prejudice MCPA and MCDCA § 14-202(8) claims alleging rent collection while the property lacked proper licensing, where the plaintiff failed to allege actual damages from court-ordered judgments or eviction. The court dismissed without prejudice the MCDCA § 14-202(10) claim based on an MCALA violation, and plaintiff's requests for relocation assistance, alternative housing costs, and punitive damages. The motion was denied in all other respects. Additionally, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice, permitting a renewed motion consistent with the court's opinion by February 18, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zEjFan from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Heather Hill Operating Company LLC Represented By: Hugh Jewett Marbury Cozen O’Connor 202-747-0781 hmarbury@cozen.com Nicole H. Sprinzen Cozen O’Connor 202-471-3451 nsprinzen@cozen.com Defendant Heather Hill Property Company LLC Represented By: Hugh Jewett Marbury Cozen O’Connor 202-747-0781 hmarbury@cozen.com Nicole H. Sprinzen Cozen O’Connor 202-471-3451 nsprinzen@cozen.com Defendant OneWall Communities LLC Represented By: Hugh Jewett Marbury Cozen O’Connor 202-747-0781 hmarbury@cozen.com Nicole H. Sprinzen Cozen O’Connor 202-471-3451 nsprinzen@cozen.com Plaintiff Charlene Hall Represented By: Jordan David Howlette Justly Prudent 202-921-6005 jordan@justlyprudent.com HILIFEVITAMINS INC: Orcel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ORCEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HILIFEVITAMINS, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01062 (D.N.J., Aug. 12, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.hilifevitamins.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on September 22, 2025, to access the Defendant's Website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied him full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase the Restorative Formulations HTN 180 Px-Extra Strength. The Plaintiff's desire for this product was due to the fact that he was searching for a dietary supplement to support general health and wellness. While browsing online for trusted sources of nutritional products, he came across the Defendant’s Website, which featured a selection of vitamins and supplements from established brands. f, asserts the suit. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, the lawsuit adds. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com HONDA MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Vehicle Front Camera Failures ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lori Waite of Top Class Actions reports that millions of Honda drivers rely on the Honda Sensing system to keep them safe, but widespread front camera failures have caused critical safety features like collision mitigation, lane keeping, and adaptive cruise control to malfunction. If your vehicle has experienced front camera failure and resulting sensor problems, you may be able to recover repair costs and other damages by participating in a Honda class action lawsuit investigation. Fill out the form on this page to see if you qualify. Do you qualify? If you own or lease a Honda Odyssey, Honda Civic, Honda Clarity or another Honda vehicle and have experienced problems related to the front camera or related sensor problems, you may be eligible to participate in a Honda class action lawsuit investigation. To find out if you qualify, complete the form on this page. Your information will be reviewed to determine whether you may be able to seek compensation for repair-related costs. The law firms responsible for the content of this page are: Kantrowitz, Goldhamer, Graifman, Perlmutter & Carballo P.C.; Montvale, NJ; 866-896-0935; kgglaw.com and Longman Law P.C.; Livingston, NJ; 973-994 2315; longman.law. Understanding the Honda Sensing front camera defect Numerous Honda owners have reported problems with the front camera in a variety of Honda models. These camera issues can interfere with the Honda Sensing System, potentially causing critical safety features to malfunction or fail altogether. Reported problems may affect systems, including: -- Collision Mitigation Braking -- Road Departure Mitigation -- Lane Keeping Assist -- Automatic Headlights -- Blind Spot Alarms -- Adaptive Cruise Control Because these features rely on the front camera to detect road conditions and nearby vehicles, camera failures may reduce a vehicle's ability to warn drivers of hazards or automatically respond to potential collisions. Despite growing reports of these safety system failures, Honda has not issued a recall related to the alleged front camera defect. Honda has also not provided compensation to many owners who report paying out of pocket for diagnostics or repairs. Common complaints about the Honda front camera failure and resulting problems Honda drivers have reported recurring problems with the front camera that can cause critical safety features to malfunction or shut down entirely. Here is what some of the owners and lessees of the Honda Odyssey are saying: -- "The Multipurpose Camera Unit has failed, resulting in loss of Adaptive Cruise Control, Lane Keep Assist, Automatic Braking and other features related to the MCU. The dealer inspected the car and confirmed the issue was a bad camera." -- "Multipurpose camera has failed, according to Honda dealership. No safety features work in the car. You pay for the car to have these features, and then, they fail after only 3 years? Have been dealing with this issue for almost 2 years now. Honda wants $1,800 for the new camera. This is a safety issue that Honda should be responsible for fixing. No adaptive cruise control, no lane keeping assist, no auto headlights, no collision mitigation, no blind spot alarms." -- "The front-facing camera responsible for detecting surrounding traffic is malfunctioning, which in turn compromises several critical safety systems. These include adaptive cruise control, lane keep assist, blind spot monitoring, automatic emergency braking, forward collision warning, and lane departure warning. All of these features depend on the proper functioning of this camera. . . . . It is my contention that Honda has engineered a defective camera system that requires a substantial out-of-pocket expense for vehicle owners to repair. I believe this cost should be borne by Honda, not the consumer. . . ." Honda Civic owners and lessees are also experiencing issues. Here is what one had to say: "The front windshield camera that utilizes Honda Sense safety tech keeps misreading certain traffic signals and inadvertently activates the phantom braking. Sometimes it blinks ultimate times to even cause the vehicle to apply its [sic] emergency brakes despite no objects present on or near the intersection(s) of major traffic light routes and/or construction sites with very bright lighting. Luckily, no other motorists were behind me. The Lane Departure warning feature would also mistake the vehicle for moving over the designated lane when driving down or uphill, or on some interstate highways, even though the vehicle is maintaining centered lane control." How to join the Honda class action lawsuit investigation If you own or lease a Honda Civic, Honda Odyssey, Honda Clarity or another Honda vehicle and have experienced problems with the front camera or Honda Sensing system, you may be eligible to participate in a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer. To get started, complete the form on this page. Your submission will be reviewed by a legal professional to determine whether you may qualify to join the Honda class action lawsuit investigation and seek potential compensation. [GN] ICON CLINICAL: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Stewart Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ STEPHANIE STEWART; and CODY HASTINGS, as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries and on behalf of the Icon Clinical Research, LLC 401(K) Plan, Plaintiffs v. ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH LLC, Defendant, Case 2:26-cv-00554 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 28, 2026) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, despite fiduciary obligations to follow the governing Plan documents, Icon failed to allocate Plan assets (forfeitures) as instructed by the Plan. Icon Specifically, despite the Plan documents' instruction that, if any forfeitures remained after restoring previously forfeited amounts to participants' accounts, "any remaining forfeitures will be used first to offset Plan expenses," Icon chose to apply millions of dollars of Plan forfeitures to first offset Icon's contractual obligations to make declared Employer Contributions to the Plan between 2020 and 2024, while using none to defray Plan expenses, Icon failed to follow the unequivocal prioritization set forth by Plan terms and prioritized offsetting Icon's costs of contributions instead, says the suit. Icon Clinical Research Ltd. provides clinical research services. The Company focuses on planning management, execution, and analysis of clinical trials. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Acciavatti, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Email: macciavatti@milberg.com - and - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. Arlene Boruchowitz, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Email: arudenco@milberg.com aboruchowitz@milberg.com INUVO INC: Announces Receipt of $6.2MM Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo!Finance reports that Inuvo, Inc. (NYSE American: INUV), a leading provider of artificial intelligence-driven data and advertising technology solutions, announced February 3 that it has received $6.2 million as a claimant of a class action lawsuit settlement first referenced in its Q3 2025 investor call and recent shareholder update. "This represents an important financial development for Inuvo," said Rob Buchner, Inuvo Chairman & CEO. "We are pleased to conclude this matter and receive the settlement proceeds, which strengthen our liquidity position and support our strategic priorities going forward." During the Company's Q3 2025 investor call, management first disclosed that Inuvo had been a party to a large class action lawsuit that had been settled and that it expected a significant payout in the first quarter of 2026. The settlement funds have now been fully received and provide additional financial flexibility to support ongoing investments in product innovation, market expansion, and operational initiatives aimed at driving long-term shareholder value. About Inuvo Inuvo, Inc. (NYSE American: INUV) is a disruptive AI specifically designed for modeling media audiences. IntentKey AI is a patented technology capable of identifying customer engagement based on real-time media consumption. Our models refresh every 5 minutes and know, with precision, why prospects are interested in a product or brand, in turn, predicting purchase intent 24 hours before legacy programmatic systems can respond to buying signals. Inuvo's language-based AI does not rely on consumer IDs, keeping Inuvo on the vanguard of consumer data privacy. To learn more, visit www.inuvo.com. Safe Harbor / Forward-Looking Statements Statements in this press release relating to Inuvo's future plans, expectations, beliefs, intentions, and prospects are "forward-looking statements" and are subject to material risks and uncertainties. A detailed discussion of these factors and other risks that affect our business is contained in Inuvo's Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, including our most recent reports on Form 10-K and Form 10-Q under the heading "Risk Factors." These filings are available on the SEC's website or on Inuvo's website at Investor Relations -- Inuvo. All information in this press release is current as of the date of release, and Inuvo undertakes no duty to update any statement in light of new information or future events. Investor Relations: Wallace Ruiz Chief Financial Officer Tel (501) 205-8508 wallace.ruiz@inuvo.com [GN] IOWA HEALTH: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Harrison Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ELLEN HARRISON, JASMINE CARBER, KRISTINE SEXTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IOWA HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a UNITYPOINT HEALTH, THE IOWA HEALTH SYSTEM BENEFITS COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 4:26-cv-00055-SHL-WPK (S.D. Iowa, Feb. 3, 2026) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Plan's fiduciaries, the Defendants, for breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Plan is a defined contribution retirement plan, established pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(2)(A) and Section 1002(34) of ERISA, that enables eligible participants to make tax deferred contributions from their salaries to the Plan. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, the Defendants breached the duties it owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of performance. The Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and the following proposed class: "All persons, except Defendants and any fiduciary of the Plan and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Iowa Health System Section 401(k) Retirement." UnityPoint Health, formerly known as Iowa Health System prior to 2013, is a major integrated healthcare provider headquartered in West Des Moines, operating hospitals and clinics across Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephanie Hinz, Esq. PICKENS, BARNES & ABERNATHY 1800 First Avenue, NE, Suite 200 Cedar Rapids, IA 52407 Telephone: (319) 366-7621 Email: Shinz@pbalawfirm.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com JJ WHITE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Stroup Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ JOHN STROUP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JJ WHITE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00536 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 28, 2026) is an action arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals, says the suit. JJ White Incorporated operates as a building construction company. The Company provides mechanical, HVAC, general construction, hydroblasting group, tank group, and construction management. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com JOCKO FUEL: Protein Shake Contains Cadmium, Clemente Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SANAA CLEMENTE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jocko Fuel, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00659 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2026) seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Defendant's Jocko Molk Protein Shake Chocolate product throughout the state of New York and throughout the U.S. According to the complaint, the Defendant specifically lists the ingredients in the Product on the labeling as made without artificial sweeteners, colors, or hidden ingredients, however, the Defendant fails to disclose that the Product contains, or is at the risk of containing, cadmium. Jocko Fuel LLC produces nutritional supplement products. The Company offers clean energy drinks, powders, capsules, and lifestyle nutritional products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Russell M. Busch, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 11 Park Place, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (919) 926-7948 Email: rbusch@brysonpllc.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (616) 678-3180 Email: nsuciu@brysconpllc.com KANNO ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KANNO ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01065 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 29, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://thehoneyjarhome.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. Kanno Enterprises, LLC sells variety of raw, unfiltered honey and related products, including honey sticks, honey corn, beeswax candles, lip balm, wraps, bulk beeswax, and seasonal specials. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Achan@ealg.law KELLER WILLIAMS: Agrees to Settle Homebuyer Class Suit for $20MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that U.S. real estate brokerage Keller Williams has agreed to pay $20 million to resolve a nationwide homebuyer class action accusing the company of conspiring to fix commissions and inflate home prices, marking the first settlement in the case. The preliminary settlement, with Keller Williams was disclosed on Monday, February 2, in the federal court in Chicago, and requires a judge's approval. Texas-based Keller Williams, which markets itself as the largest real estate franchise by agent count, said it would cooperate with the buyers as they pursue related claims against brokerages Anywhere Real Estate, RE/MAX, and industry trade group National Association of Realtors. The homebuyer plaintiffs contend that sellers are inflating home prices to offset the cost of commissions they must pay to the buyers' agents under industry rules and practices implemented by the defendants. U.S. home sellers often pay commissions of upwards of 5% to 6% of the cost of a house. Part of that commission is paid to the broker for the buyer. Keller Williams chief executive officer and president Chris Czarnecki in a statement said "we are the first defendant to resolve this litigation with the goal of eliminating uncertainty for our franchisees and agents." He said the accord will allow Keller Williams to focus on its mission. Lead attorneys for the homebuyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Keller Williams denied any wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. The National Association of Realtors in a statement said the settlement does not directly affect its position in the litigation, and that it will "pursue all potential resolutions, both non-litigation and litigation, to reach a result that is in the best interest of our members, the industry and consumers." RE/MAX and Anywhere did not immediately respond to requests for comment. They too have denied participating in the alleged price-fixing conspiracy according to their court filings. Lawyers for the homebuyers said in their request for approval that settling would provide a "substantial benefit" to class members, especially given the risk of continued litigation. Keller Williams will cooperate with the plaintiffs through deposition testimony, trial testimony and documents, the filing said. The plaintiffs' lawyers said they will seek up to about 33% of the settlement, or $6.7 million, for legal fees. The National Association of Realtors and some major brokerages have been hit with separate antitrust lawsuits by home sellers claiming damages in connection with commission fees. Many of those cases have resulted in settlements totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. The case is Mya Batton et al v. National Association of Realtors et al, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:21-cv-00430. For plaintiffs: Vincent Briganti of Lowey Dannenberg, and George Zelcs of Korein Tillery For Keller Williams: Boris Bershteyn of Skadden Arps, and David Kully of Holland & Knight [GN] LEDRA BRANDS: Adams Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT F. ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEDRA BRANDS, INC., a California Corporation; VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV03427 (Cal. Super, Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 2, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings this action under the PAGA, as a representative action on behalf 11 of the State of California and all Aggrieved Employees, regarding violations of the California Labor Code. The Aggrieved Employees include: All hourly/non-exempt employees who are or were employed by Ledra Brands and/or who performed work for Ledra Brands in the State of California at any time from May 2, 2024, through the present (PAGA Period). The Defendants own, operate, manage and/or staff its employees to work at 7 including but not limited to, the warehouse distribution centers, manufacturing centers, facilities and/or other location(s) in California. Volt is a staffing company with locations throughout California, including in Torrance, California. Ledra Brands specializes in including the manufacturing of lighting. Volt is a staffing company.BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon Brouillette, Esq. Raymond Wendell, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com raymond@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com LEGACY HEALTH: Class Settlement Ends Alleged Data Tracking Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Legacy Health has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the Oregon healthcare provider surreptitiously deployed tracking pixels on its website that transmitted private health information to third parties. The Legacy Health class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on December 29, 2025 and covers all Legacy patients residing in the United States who registered for a patient portal account after receiving an invitation from the at any time between February 18, 2019 and December 31, 2022 (referred to in settlement documents as "Category One" class members). The settlement additionally covers all class of patients who do not fall into Category One but otherwise logged into their Legacy Health patient portal any time between January 1, 2021 and February 9, 2024. The court-approved website for the Legacy Health pixel settlement can be found at PixelLegacyHealthSettlement.com. Per the website, all Legacy Health settlement class members are eligible for automatic enrollment in one free year of CyEx Medical Shield Complete, which provides dark web monitoring, victim assistance, high-risk transaction monitoring, and other identity theft protections. The settlement website notes that class members do not need to file a claim to receive this benefit as members were sent via email steps for enrollment, including their unique enrollment code, from the settlement administrator as part of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe they may be a Legacy class member but did not receive an enrollment email, or who have any outstanding questions about the enrollment process, may contact the settlement administrator for assistance. Additionally, the settlement site reports that all class members who file a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of $15. Class members may choose to receive their payouts via PayPal, Venmo, Zelle, or a mailed physical check, which must be cashed within 180 days of issuance before expiration, the agreement adds. To submit a Legacy Health settlement claim form online, class members can visit this page of the site and enter the unique ID and claim login PIN as found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form here to print, complete and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed on the first page. All Legacy Health settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than March 16, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Legacy Health settlement at a hearing on April 16, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Legacy Health class action lawsuit contended that the Oregon-based nonprofit healthcare provider embedded tracking pixels onto the site housing its patient portal that collected and transmitted patient information to third parties, like Meta (formerly Facebook) and Google, for the purpose of targeted advertising. The lawsuit further stipulated that the alleged broadcast of private health information was in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. [GN] LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to April 10 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Upperco, et al., v. Lucas County Board Of Commissioners, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01283 (N.D. Ohio, Filed June 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge James R. Knepp II entered an order on Motion to extend deadlines Order [non-document] granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Deadlines for Class Certification Briefing. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification now due by April 10, 2026. The Defendants' Response by May 11, 2026. Reply by June 1, 2026. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Job Discrimination (Employment).[CC] MINKY COUTURE: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Minky Couture, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00867 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 26, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.softminkyblankets.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. Minky Couture, LLC is a privately held, Utah-based company that designs and manufactures high-end, ultra-soft blankets made from plush, high-quality minky fabric. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law MONSANTO COMPANY: Holmes Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Holmes, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-436 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 27, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Jordan Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Advertising ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Jordan, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-437 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 27, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Mezo Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Mezo, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-435 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 27, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Shinpaugh Sues Over Wrongful Sale & Advertising ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tammy Shinpaugh, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-446 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 27, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Simmons Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale ------------------------------------------------------------ Betty Simmons, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-433 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 27, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MOULINAS LLC: Rosales Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN CARLOS ROSALES SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and all similarly situated persons v. MOULINAS LLC d/b/a BAR TABAC, GEORGE FORGEOIS and CHRISTOPHE HAXAIRE, Case No. 1:26-cv-00576 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants employed Plaintiff from in or about 2012 through on or about Aug. 3, 2025 as a busser. However, the Defendants' restaurant was closed for approximately two months during the Covid-19 pandemic during 2020, during which Plaintiff did not perform any hours worked. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff regularly worked five days, or sometimes even more days, per workweek. 18. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff regularly worked on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. until between 11:00 p.m. and midnight, and sometimes even more hours during these days, and on Saturday and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., and sometimes even more hours during these days. The Defendants are a company and its shareholders that operate a restaurant and bar serving French cuisine, bar fare and alcohol in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 NEWMONT CADIA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Contamination Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Micaela Hambrett, writing for ABC Central West, reports that lawyers representing landowners in Central West NSW have launched a class action against the operator of the Cadia goldmine. It will allege the mine has contaminated more than 2,000 properties within a 17-kilometre radius. What's next? A hearing has been scheduled for March. Landowners living near one of the world's biggest goldmines in central west NSW have launched an environmental class action alleging contamination of more than 2,000 properties. Lawyers for the claimants allege arsenic, heavy metals and forever chemicals known as PFAS have travelled from Newmont's Cadia goldmine onto properties in a 17-kilometre radius. "This case follows … three years of investigation by the community, [looking] at the impact upon their properties from the dust and water pollution, " principal lawyer Oliver Gayner said. Mr Gayner said the community felt it had "no choice" other than to litigate. "They've communicated those science-based results to the mine operator and sought a collaborative process to try and resolve the pollution issues, but those requests have been refused," he said. Community members are seeking compensation from the mining giant, saying the pollution has damaged their property values through a "toxic trifecta" of air, surface and groundwater pollution. They are also seeking an injunction to restrain further pollution from the Cadia site, which has a production rate of more than 30 million tonnes of ore a year. "Success for us is not about money, it will be measured by the change in operations at Cadia," Mr Gayner said. In a statement, Newmont Cadia confirmed it had been served with proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW and would "respond through the appropriate legal processes". "As the matter is before court, it is not appropriate to comment further at this time," the statement read. Dust up Residents of the Cadia and Errowanbang valleys near Orange flagged pollution concerns with the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) in 2018, after the mine's tailings dam wall collapsed. Jann Harries, who lives 2 kilometres from the mine's boundary, said the impact of the structural failure was obvious. "Everything was covered in off-white dust, day in, day out," Ms Harries said. "It had that taste and smell, if I breathed it in, I'd start coughing." Concerns were raised again after extractor fans over an underground crusher were found to be blasting unfiltered dust into the atmosphere at 18 times the legal limit. Drinking water tanks on neighbouring properties were subsequently found to contain heavy metals, including lead. Future implications The class action is being bankrolled by UK litigation fund Aristata, whose executives travelled from London to visit allegedly affected farms last year. In a statement, head of portfolio management, Michael Hartridge, called the case "important", saying it supported the "UN's sustainable development goals". Claimants said they were not arguing the mine should be shut down, acknowledging its role in the region's economy. However, they claim the current operating rate is not sustainable for the health of their own interests. Mr Gayner said the case was unusual because it was being bought by people with similarly valuable assets to protect. "What's unusual is the close juxtaposition of a mine within an [organised and determined] community, with farmland and residential properties which are high value," he said. "These people want to protect their interests now and for the future." Court history In 2023, Newmont pleaded guilty in the Land and Environment Court to three counts of air pollution and was fined $350,000. Two additional charges were dropped in exchange for the mine installing five new dust monitors in 2024. That same year, farmers on the mine's southern border reported slabs of white foam appearing on the Belubula River, an important source of irrigation for the region. Laboratory tests revealed the foam was predominantly PFOS, a synthetic chemical used in a variety of industrial applications, including firefighting. A year-long sampling program by the Environment Protection Authority established PFAS was present in the Upper Belubula River catchment at 16 sites, including the Blayney tip, landscape supplier ANL and Cadia, but the risk was low for livestock and the environment. The EPA later banned fishing in the Belubula and erected warning signs after testing revealed the flesh of some fish species contained 40 times the daily intake limit for PFOS. A hearing has been directed for March. [GN] NOUVEAU ESSENTIALS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Opresti Due July 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OPRESTI v. NOUVEAU ESSENTIALS MARKETING LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00282 (M.D. Fla., Filed April 30, 2025), the Hon. Judge Carlos E. Mendoza entered an order granting unopposed motion to modify case management scheduling order. The Plaintiff's expert report disclosure is due by May 4, 2026. The Defendant's expert report disclosure is due by June 3, 2026. Rebuttal expert report disclosure is due by June 17, 2026. Completion of discovery and motions to compel discovery are due by July 2, 2026. Class certification is due by July 13, 2026. Dispositive and Daubert Motions are due by Aug. 3, 2026. Conduct meditation hearing by July 16, 2026. Joint pretrial meeting by Aug. 28, 2026. The joint final pretrial statement and any other motions, including motion in limine, jointly proposed jury instructions and jointly proposed verdict form are due by Dec. 7, 2026. Trial Status Conference set for Dec. 17, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[CC] PANERA BRANDS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cardin Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL CARDIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PANERA BRANDS, INC. d/b/a PANERA BREAD, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00125 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 29, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals ("Class Members") personally identifying information, including names, email addresses, home addresses, phone numbers and account details (collectively "PII" or "Private Information"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite Panera's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when a hacker using the online moniker 'ShinyHunters' posted on a popular hacking forums in January 2026, that it stole more than 14 million records, totaling 760 MB of compressed data (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant maintained the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members in a negligent and/or reckless manner. In particular, the PII was maintained on Panera's computer system and network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks, says the suit. Panera Brands, Inc. is a restaurant company that operates and franchises bakery-cafés offering bread, sandwiches, soups, salads, and beverages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don M. Downing, Esq. Morry S. Cole, Esq. GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C. 701 Market Street, Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63101-1826 Telephone: (314) 241-5620 Facsimile: (314) 241-4140 Email: mcole@grgpc.com ddowning@grgpc.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com rob@lcllp.com PERSONIFY HEALTH: Blalock Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- WENDY BLALOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERSONIFY HEALTH, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-at-00545 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2026) alleges violation of the California Trap and Trace Law, and California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant embedded 6sense's "anonymous visitor identification" tracking software (the "Tracking Beacon") on the Website. 6sense markets this technology as a way for businesses to identify visitors who do not submit forms or otherwise reveal their identity during a visit—i.e., visitors who wish to remain anonymous through ordinary web browsing. The Defendant did not deploy this technology to provide content or maintain basic website functionality, but to identify visitors and extract commercial value from their browsing activity by transmitting identifying signals off-site for matching and downstream commercial exploitation, says the suit. Personify Health, Inc. operates as a health platform company. The Company creates a cohesive health experience by bringing together everything from benefits administration, chronic condition management, holistic wellbeing programs, coaching, and health goals tracking. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jaymie Parkkinen, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 Email: jparkkinen@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com PG&E COMPANY: Small Business Owners Sue Over Power Outages ---------------------------------------------------------- Cornell Barnard of ABC7 reports that a group of small business owners in San Francisco impacted by power outages in December, are taking PG&E to court. The class action lawsuit filed Monday, February 2, claims the utility caused businesses significant financial harm during a series of outages around the holidays. "San Franciscans deserve an electric company that's reliable, when you flip the switch the lights should come on," said Sunset homeowner David Lee. Small business owners say last December, that didn't happen for several days when a fire at a PG&E substation knocked out power to roughly a third of San Francisco. "We're filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of businesses impacted by PG&E blackouts," said Lee. About 40 small business owners and some homeowners are part of the lawsuit, seeking damages from the utility, the group is represented by retired Judge, Quentin Kopp. "PG&E continues to be oblivious of it's record of damage to business and homeowners, some of our clients have been damaged over $100,000," said Kopp. Far East Café in Chinatown is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, they say they lost customers and food product during December outages. "The ingredients, frozen food has to be given away, discarded. Labor, people show up for work disappointed," said Mel Lee, Far East Cafe spokesperson. "They should do the right thing and pay up to help our local mom and pop businesses recover the from the blackouts they caused," said David Lee. In a statement, the utility tells ABC7 Eyewitness News, it hasn't seen the lawsuit yet, adding: "We're actively meeting with and supporting our customers and we continue to process claims related to this outage as quickly as possible." PG&E has offered bill credits of $200 for homeowners and $2,500 in compensation for businesses. Some say it is not enough. "It's way beyond $2,500 in damages, they know it and we know it," said Mel Lee. [GN] PICARD MEDICAL: Faces Securities Suit Over Pump-and-Dump Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- Investment News reports that a class action lawsuit filed in California federal court accuses four underwriters and an auditor of enabling a pump-and-dump scheme that weaponized stolen advisor identities. The lawsuit, filed February 2 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, targets medical device company Picard Medical, Inc., its officers and directors, IPO underwriters WestPark Capital, Inc., Sentinel Brokers Company, Inc., R.F. Lafferty & Co., Inc., and American Trust Investments, as well as auditor MaloneBailey, LLP. At the center of the allegations is a troubling scheme: fraudsters allegedly stole the identities of legitimate financial advisors to promote Picard stock through Facebook advertisements and private WhatsApp groups, luring unsuspecting retail investors with promises of guaranteed returns. The lead plaintiff, Julianne Louie, claims she was drawn into one such WhatsApp group after clicking on a Facebook ad promoting stock advice. Court documents describe how she received instructions to purchase large quantities of PMI shares, with the buying volume so aggressive it triggered safeguards at her brokerage. Picard Medical went public on September 2, 2025, listing on Nasdaq at $4.00 per share. The lawsuit alleges the IPO was deliberately structured with an unusually thin public float of approximately 5%, making the stock particularly vulnerable to manipulation. Only 4,250,000 shares were made available to the public out of more than 90 million total outstanding shares. The stock subsequently skyrocketed to an intraday high of $13.68 on October 23, 2025, before plunging approximately 70% during after-hours trading that same day. Shares have since cratered to around $2.00. The lawsuit points to WestPark Capital, the IPO's lead bookrunner, alleging the firm had "a well-known history of taking small, high-risk issuers public, including several micro-cap offerings that later encountered regulatory scrutiny or trading halts." MaloneBailey, the company's auditor, allegedly issued clean audit opinions despite purported violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board standards. Edwin Dorsey, founder of The Bear Cave, a forensic financial research authority, reportedly flagged Picard as being manipulated by fraudsters as early as September 30, 2025, just four weeks after the IPO. Yet the defendants allegedly failed to warn investors until October 24, 2025, a day after the crash. Louie claims she purchased approximately 25,331 shares at $12.40 on October 22, 2025, and sold five days later at prices ranging from $4.8725 to $4.89 per share. The lawsuit brings claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging false and misleading statements and a failure to disclose the fraudulent promotion scheme. The case covers investors who purchased Picard securities between September 2, 2025, and October 31, 2025. No determination on the merits has been made. [GN] PLUG POWER: Faces Ortolani Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ORTOLANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLUG POWER INC., ANDREW MARSH, and PAUL B. MIDDLETON, Case No. 1:26-cv-00165-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Plug Power securities between January 17, 2025 and November 13, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Defendants had materially overstated the likelihood that funds attributed to the DOE Loan would ultimately become available to Plug Power, and/or that Plug Power would ultimately construct the hydrogen production facilities necessary to receive those funds. On Oct. 7, 2025, Plug Power issued a press release and filed a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC announcing that Defendant Andrew Marsh would step down from his role as the Company's Chief Executive Officer. On this news, Plug Power's stock price fell $0.26 per share, or 6.29%, to close at $3.87 per share later that day. Then, during market hours on Nov. 13, 2025, The Washington Examiner reported that Plug Power confirmed that it suspended activities on its plans to construct six facilities to produce and liquefy zero or low-carbon hydrogen, putting at risk the $1.66 billion DOE Loan it closed in January. On this news, Plug Power's stock price fell $0.48 per share, or 17.58%, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $2.25 per share on November 14, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Plug Power provides hydrogen fuel cell turnkey solutions for the electric mobility and stationary power markets in North America and Europe, including hydrogen storage and production equipment or the delivery of hydrogen fuel, and develops infrastructure such as hydrogen production plants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com PREMIER NUTRITION: Settles Supplements' False Ads Suit for $19.16MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that consumers who purchased Joint Juice glucosamine supplements in New York between Dec. 5, 2013, and Dec. 28, 2021, may be eligible to claim approximately $50 per product from a class action settlement. Premier Nutrition Corp. agreed to pay $19.16 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it falsely advertised the joint health benefits of its Joint Juice products. Who can file a claim? Class members must have purchased any Joint Juice product in New York between Dec. 5, 2013, and Dec. 28, 2021 (inclusive). Eligible Joint Juice products include: -- Drops -- On the Go! powder mix stick packets (seven-pack or 30-pack) -- Easy shot liquid concentrate (1-liter bottle) -- Extra strength easy shot liquid concentrate (1-liter bottle) -- Ready-to-drink beverage bottles (six-pack or 30-pack) -- Extra strength ready-to-drink beverage bottles (six-pack or 24-pack) There are two groups of class members: -- Direct payment class members: Individuals identified through retailer records who received a postcard or email notice. These members will automatically receive a payment based on the number of Joint Juice units recorded in retailer records as shown in the notice they received. -- Claim-in class members: Individuals who did not receive a notice but purchased Joint Juice in New York during the covered time frame. These members must file a claim to receive compensation. Who is excluded from the class? -- Any person or entity who purchased Joint Juice for resale -- Anyone who purchased Join Juice outside New York (there is a separate settlement for purchases in other states) -- Anyone who timely and properly excludes themselves from the class How much can class members get? Each eligible class member can claim approximately $50 per Joint Juice unit purchased in New York during the covered period. -- Direct payment class members will automatically receive payment for the number of units shown in their notice. If they purchased more units than indicated, they can file a claim for the additional units. -- Claim-in class members can claim up to six units without providing receipts. For more than six units, they must submit proof of purchase for each additional unit. The settlement administrator may adjust the actual payment class members receive depending on the total number of claims filed and other factors described in the settlement agreement. How to claim a class action rebate Eligible class members can file a claim online or download and print the PDF claim form, complete it and mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is May 15, 2026. Direct payment class members do not need to file a claim unless they wish to claim additional units not covered by the notice they received. Claim-in class members must file a claim to receive any payment. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Joint Juice New York Settlement, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91440, Seattle, WA 98111 What proof or documentation is required to submit a claim? -- Class members who purchased up to six units do not need to submit proof. -- Class members who purchased more than six units must provide proof of purchase (receipts, order confirmations or retailer account history) for each additional unit. -- Direct payment class members do not need to submit proof for units the retailer already recorded but must provide proof for any additional claimed units. Payout options -- Electronic check sent to the class member's email address -- Physical check mailed to the class member's postal address $19.16 million settlement fund breakdown The $19,160,186.47 settlement fund includes: -- Administrative and distribution costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: $9,992,227.92 -- Service award to class representative: $28,294 -- Payments to eligible class members: $9,139,664.55 If any money remains after the settlement administrator pays all claims and costs, it will donate the funds to the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: April 6, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: April 30, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: May 15, 2026 When is the Joint Juice New York settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Premier Nutrition Corp. deceptively advertised the joint health benefits of Joint Juice products. Premier Nutrition denies any wrongdoing, but both parties agreed to settle in 2025 to avoid the risks and expenses of ongoing appeals and further litigation. [GN] RICHTECH ROBOTICS: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Richtech Robotics Inc. (NASDAQ: RR) between January 27, 2026 and 12:00 PM ET on January 29, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Richtech Robotics investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Richtech Robotics class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=51742 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Richtech claimed that it had a collaborative and commercial relationship with Microsoft when it did not; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about Richtech's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 3, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=51742 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN 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. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260202922702/en/ CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] RISE & EXPAND: Rice Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ LUCAS RICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RISE & EXPAND ENTERPRISES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-147 (E.D. Wis., Jan. 28, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://flyhugz.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. Rise & Expand Enterprises LLC sells memory foam neck pillow under the brand FlyHugs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law SAN FRANCISCO: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Hidden Ticket Junk Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that the San Francisco Giants faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the ballclub added hidden "junk fees" to ticket purchases, causing consumers to buy game tickets at prices higher than those initially advertised. The 25-page class action lawsuit claims that the Giants tacked on last-minute "service," "convenience," "handling and convenience," and "order" processing fees to ticket purchases made through the MLB Ballpark app and mobile and desktop versions of the Major League Baseball website. Per the complaint, the San Francisco Giants junk fees often increase the final price of a transaction by more than $50. The suit alleges that the addition of junk fees is not only illegal in California but also harmful to consumers, who, the case says, are induced into paying more than the originally disclosed price. According to the class action lawsuit, although the Giants stopped charging undisclosed junk fees in or around July 2024, the team has not refunded hundreds of thousands of fans the millions in wrongful junk fees they were charged. Per the filing, the Federal Trade Commission refers to the addition of junk fees to a transaction as "drip pricing" or "bait and switch" advertising, when the total price of a given product or service is not disclosed until late in the checkout process. The Giants, the case says, intentionally advertised ticket prices as lower than they were and failed to disclose the total price of the tickets until consumers had already invested their time and were "committed" to the purported original price. The filing says that the FTC considers junk fees to be "especially egregious" when they aren't disclosed until late in the checkout process. Consumers are "unlikely to depart" from a purchasing decision once a transaction is nearly complete, as junk fees effectively manipulate customers into paying more for the tickets than they otherwise would, the lawsuit says. Drip pricing also harms consumers by creating uncertainty about a product or service's price, ultimately forcing them to spend more time and effort on comparison shopping, the lawsuit states. "Large, sophisticated companies—like the Giants—with large, sophisticated marketing departments know that junk fees ensure consumers pay more for the good or service than they otherwise would or should pay," the case charges. To make matters worse, the lawsuit says, consumers were imparted with a false sense of urgency due to the Giants' use of a countdown clock during the checkout process. The suit contends that the countdown clock interferes with consumers' ability to make informed purchasing decisions. As the clock runs, the case says, consumers are expected to review all information about hidden junk fees, read the 15-page "Terms and Conditions," and notice and understand the increase in the total price of their tickets. The San Francisco Giants class action lawsuit seeks to cover all individuals who purchased a ticket from the team through the MLB Ballpark app or through MLB.com and who paid a service fee, convenience fee, order processing fee, and/or other similar fee to the Giants that was not included in the originally displayed price. [GN] SERENA UZIYEL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Says -------------------------------------------------------------- EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. SERENA UZIYEL LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00895 (Feb. 3, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://serenauziyel.us, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's interactive website, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled, says the suit. The Defendant offers the commercial website to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SNAP INC: Scrapes Content from YouTube to Train AI, Lawsuit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Snap, owner and operator of Snapchat, defies YouTube's measures designed to protect the intellectual property of its creators by illegally downloading millions of videos off the platform to train its generative AI model. According to the 22-page lawsuit, Snap has fraudulently downloaded the visual and audio files of millions of YouTube videos via backend automated tools in a process known as scraping. In doing so, the complaint argues, the technology giant intends to improve the features on its social media app, Snapchat, so its users can "create, edit and recreate" their pictures by prompting the generative artificial intelligence model. The scraped YouTube videos, according to the case, are deemed content creators' intellectual property and are safeguarded from unauthorized access under YouTube's Terms of Service, along with the platform's technological protection measures, regardless of copyright registration. "YouTube's Terms of Service expressly prohibit scraping, unauthorized downloading, bulk extraction, or other forms of data mining of audiovisual content except through expressly permitted features or licensed [application programming interfaces]," the complaint states. "These contractual restrictions operate together with [technological protection measures] to prevent unlicensed access to creators' videos." However, despite these assurances, Snap has allegedly utilized a video-downloading program and virtual machines that go beyond the "ordinary" use of a site visitor to access datasets -- called HD-VILA-100M and Panda-70M -- that contain detailed information about millions of YouTube videos. Per the case, these tools operate by rotating IP addresses to avoid detection and circumvent protection measures, which the suit contends is in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. For Snap's AI model, as is the case with all other AI models, the more data that can be accessed and digested in training stages, "the better the AI product" will be, the complaint adds, noting that Snap needed to obtain "vast amounts of data" from various sources to develop its generative AI. "Defendant has at all times intended to create a well-trained generative AI product … that will give Defendant an advantage in competition against its competitors in technology and social media spheres, and that Defendant can leverage for commercial purposes in order to increase its own profitability," the lawsuit alleges. The plaintiffs are a group of popular content creators behind the channels "h3h3 Productions," "H3 Podcast Highlights," "Mr. ShortGame Golf" and "Golfholics" who claim that a number of their videos were scraped by Snap for the purpose of AI training without authorization. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs collectively have hundreds of distinct videos in the HD-VILA-100M and Panda-70M datasets. "[Snap]'s actions were not only unlawful, but an unconscionable attack on the community of content creators whose content is used to fuel the multi-trillion-dollar generative AI industry without any compensation," the case summarizes. The Snap AI class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals in the United States who uploaded original videos to YouTube that were partially or entirely included in the HD-VILA-100M and Panda-70M datasets scraped and downloaded by Snap. [GN] SOUTHERN NEW: Wright Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------ ASHLEY WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00041 (D.N.H., Jan. 27, 2026) alleges violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant disclose its students' and prospective students' private data, including personally identifiable information and educational records, to unauthorized third parties, including at least Meta Platforms, Inc., Google LLC, Snap Inc., and TikTok Ltd. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and Class Members, however, the Defendant's domains "https://www.snhu.edu" and "https://my.snhu.edu/" contained Tracking Technologies within their source code that surreptitiously intercept, record, and transmit the Plaintiff and Class Members' private online activity and communications, including within password protected spaces, to third parties without their consent, in violation of numerous laws, industry standards, and user expectations, says the suit. Southern New Hampshire University operates as an educational company. The Company offers degrees in accounting, auditing, forensic accounting, taxation, business education, child development, communication, public relations, and history sectors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Carey, Esq. ORR & RENO, PA 45 South Main Street PO Box 3550 Concord, NH 03302 Telephone: (603) 224-2381 Email: rcarey@orr-reno.com - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. Rachel Kesten, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com rkesten@lowey.com SPRING FOOTWEAR: Cruz Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Spring Footwear Corp., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00148-JPS (E.D. Wis., Jan. 28, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.springstepshoes.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. Spring Footwear Corp. provides footware products. The Company engages in the wholesale distribution of shoes and other footwear products for men and women. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law STATEN ISLAND: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Compromised Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Staten Island University Hospital (SIUH) has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging the hospital failed to protect sensitive patient information that was compromised during a January 2024 cyberattack at Medibase, a technology company that provided SIUH with software solutions. The Staten Island University Hospital class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on December 18, 2025 and covers living individuals in the United States whose private information was compromised as a result of the January 2024 Medibase data breach. The court-approved website for the Staten Island University Hospital and Medibase data breach settlement can be found at MedibaseSIUHDataBreachSettlement.com. According to the website, SIUH settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim have multiple options for reimbursement. Those who experienced out-of-pocket losses related to the data breach may submit a claim with documented proof of their losses to receive reimbursement of up to $1,000. Per the settlement site, covered losses must have been incurred between January 26, 2024 and March 16, 2026 and may include those related to identity theft, fraud, credit reports, credit monitoring, and other miscellaneous expenses. In addition to the documented-loss payment, class members may file a claim to receive a cash payment of $35 without needing to provide any proof, the agreement reports. Class members may elect to receive their settlement cash payout via check or electronic payment, the agreement notes, and all checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance. In addition to any monetary benefits, all SIUH class members may also file a claim to receive an enrollment code for two free years of CyEx Medical Shield Complete, which includes identity theft insurance and monitoring of health insurance IDs, medical record numbers and unauthorized health savings account (HAS) spending, according to the settlement site. Finally, the settlement agreement notes that SIUH has terminated its business agreement with Medibase. To file a SIUH settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN as provided on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form from the settlement website to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator on the second page of the document. Consumers who believe they may be a settlement class member but did not receive notice should email the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and obtain their login details. All SIUH claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by March 16, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the SIUH data breach settlement at a hearing on March 31, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Staten Island University Hospital class action lawsuit alleged that Medibase, a healthcare software company, experienced a data breach on or around January 26, 2024 that potentially compromised the private information of current and former patients of the New York City-based hospital. Per court documents, the sensitive data that may have been impacted by the breach included, but is not limited to, names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, admit and discharge dates, outstanding account balances, and health insurance information. [GN] THRASIO LLC: Recalls Enzyme Stain Removers Due to Infection Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Thrasio is recalling approximately 1.5 million Angry Orange Enzyme Stain Removers, incl. 43,700 units sold in Canada. Why: The Angry Orange recall is due to the presence of bacteria, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which poses a risk of serious infection. Where: The recall is effective in the United States and Canada. Thrasio has announced a recall of its Angry Orange Enzyme Stain Removers due to potential bacterial contamination. The Angry Orange recall affects more than 1.5 million units in the United States and Canada. The products may contain Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a bacterium that can cause serious infections in individuals with weakened immune systems or certain medical conditions. The U.S. recall was issued on Jan. 22, the same day as the Canada recall, and the recalls include Angry Orange Enzyme Stain Removers in Fresh Clean and Orange Twist scents, available in 24-oz, 32-oz, and 1-gallon sizes. The products, identified by UPC numbers 850039953002 and 850039953033, were sold at major retailers such as Walmart, Target, and The Home Depot, as well as online platforms like Amazon.com. According to the recall, the bacteria can enter the body through inhalation, the eyes, or skin breaks, posing a risk to vulnerable individuals. "People with healthy immune systems are usually not affected by bacteria," the recall says. Consumers advised to stop using Angry Orange products The Angry Orange recall notice is urging consumers to immediately stop using the product and to contact the company for a refund. The recall notice instructs consumers to take a photo of the product with "recalled" and their initials written on it, then email it to productrecall@angryorange.com. The product should be disposed of in its container with household trash, without emptying or recycling the bottle. No illnesses have been reported in connection with the recalled products in either the United States or Canada. Thrasio is not currently facing legal action over the Angry Orange recall. However, Top Class Actions monitors recalls closely as they sometimes lead to class action lawsuits. [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ghannoum Suit Seeks Drivers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ ENMAR GHANNOUM and JONATHAN HARKNESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00933 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2026) alleges that Uber has misclassified its drivers, including the Plaintiffs and the class members, as independent contractors, even though they are employees under New York law. By misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors, Uber has unlawfully shifted business expenses -- including costs for vehicle maintenance, gas, insurance, phone and data usage, and other necessary expenses -- onto Plaintiffs and the class members in violation of New York Labor Law. Uber has failed to pay its drivers the applicable minimum wage under NYLL and overtime premiums under 12 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 142-2.2, the suit says. The Plaintiffs and the class members have driven for Uber in New York, performing the core transportation and food delivery services Uber offers. Uber provides on-demand transportation and food delivery services across the country and the world, including in the state of New York, through a mobile phone application and website.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Carter Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MESHWEIDA CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00401 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard highly sensitive and protected personally identifiable information ("PII"), including contact information (full names, email addresses, and phone numbers) and Social Security numbers. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. The Defendant breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. The University of Phoenix, Inc. offers degrees in both undergraduate and graduate level curriculum. The University provides programs including undergraduate degree programs in nursing and business as well as Graduate degree programs in social sciences and natural sciences. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Waisnor, Esq. James M. Fee, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway, 34th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Email: jwaisnor@labaton.com jfee@labaton.com UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Clark Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC.; and ORACLE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-00184 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 26, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive personally identifiable information provided by and belonging to the current and former students, faculty, staff, and suppliers (collectively, "PII") of the University of Phoenix. According to the complaint, the PII of the Plaintiff was compromised as a result of Defendants' failure to: (i) adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class members of their inadequate information security practices; and (iii) failure to contract with responsible contractors. Defendants' conduct amounts to at least negligence and violates federal statutes designed to prevent or mitigate this very harm. The University of Phoenix Inc. is a private for-profit university headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. Founded in 1976, the university confers certificates and degrees at the certificate, associate, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree levels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE, PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 Email: bruce@swclaw.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 W Broadway #900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Email: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - Andrew J. Heo, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 2001 Market Street, Ste. 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Email: aheo@barrack.com USRX LLC: Cruz Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USRX, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00146 (E.D. Wis., Jan. 28, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://urbanskinrx.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. Usrx LLC, doing business as Urban Skin Rx, provides skincare products online. The Company offers cleansers, toners, masks, serums and pads, moisturizers, body eye and lip skincare kits, and other related products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law VIKING GROUP: Removes Wallace Suit to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of CRYSTAL WALLACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIKING GROUP, INC.; SUPPLY NETWORK, INC.; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King (Case No. 26-2-00998-8) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 27, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00313 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. Viking Group Inc. operates as a full service provider of fire protection devices and solutions. The Company offers diverse fire extinguishers and extinguishing systems. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tyler S. Weaver, Esq. ANGELI & CALFO LLC 701 Pike Street, Suite 625 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 703-4810 Email: tylerw@angelicalfo.com - and - James R. Peterson, Esq. Robert M. Harding, Esq. Akshita Verma, Esq. MILLER JOHNSON 45 Ottawa Avenue SW, Suite 1100 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 831-1700 Email: petersonj@millerjohnson.com hardingr@millerjohnson.com vermaa@millerjohnson.com WYOMING: Faces Parkhurst Class Action Suit Over Prisoner Deaths --------------------------------------------------------------- DERRICK R. PARKHURST, and THE CLASS OF ALL OTHER PRISONERS OF THE STATE OF WYOMING, OR PRISONERS OF WYOMING IN THE PAST OR FUTURE, OR WHO MAY HA VE DIED, WHO ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00040-KHR (Feb. 2, 2026) arises from the alleged numerous prisoner deaths that have happened to the prisoners at the Wyoming prisons. The Defendants have faced a Class Action in the past, i.e. United States vs. Wyoming, just after the turn of the millennium, or a couple of years after. That was a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 case, not a case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. While relevant, that case is different from this. That said, there is a case - Welch v. Everett- that is cited and used in a limited fashion in this case. It is a case where a prisoner was murdered, viciously and without remorse, by other prisoners, and those prisoners were punished by the state courts. However, guards set that prisoner up, and those guards were not punished- It was actively covered up-and that cover-up continues to this day, the lawsuit says. The named Plaintiff is a prisoner of the State of Wyoming, and is now incarcerated at the Wyoming Medium Correctional Institution in Torrington, Wyoming. He suffers from partial blindness, mental confusion or dementia, strokes-including both hemorrhagic and ischemic strokes, diabetes, is generally handicapped, has the probability of his contracting cancer in the future (he does not now have cancer but it is likely he will contract it, considering his family history), has a hernia, has acid reflux/GERD, and is hearing impaired. The Defendants include WYOMING STATE PENITENTLARY; WYOMING MEDIUM CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; WYOMING HONOR FARM; WYOMTNG HONOR CONSERVATION CAMP AND BOOT CAMP; WYOMfNG WOMEN'S CENTER; and WEXFORD, INC.; CMS, INC.; CORIZON HEALTH, fNC.; CHS TX INC.; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; PHS CORRECTIONAL HEALTH, INC.; YESCARE, INC.; NAPHCARE, INC.; Defendant Wyse, and JOHN DOES 1-100, et al., the Class of Corporation(s) or person(s) having control over the Piaintiff(s), and JANELL THAYER, and THE CLASS OF PERSONS WHO HAVE COMMITTED ACTS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO CONCEAL THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, OR OTHER WISE ACT TO COYER UP THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] ********* 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 ***