Collecto Debt Collection QR Code Exposure Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that Collecto dba EOS CCO violated federal and state law regarding debt collection practices by placing customer QR codes in the window of the envelope which in turn makes it visible to all.  A person can scan the QR code and determine the customers account number which arguably is illegal when visible without opening the envelope.

This is a relatively simple case.  Collecto is a debt collector.  When communicating with consumers that owe a debt, Collecto sends written communications in an envelope with a window in the front.  That window contains the name and address of the customer.  

It also contains a QR Code, which is a type of matrix barcode which is a machine-readable optical label that contains information about the item to which it is attached.

Anyone with a smart phone can read the QR Code and determine the account number of the customer.  

Exposure to the public of the customer’s account most likely violates federal debt collection laws.

Trinet (TNET) Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that TriNet did not properly model medical and insurance costs for its workers compensation services, thereby overstating revenues and net income for the time period in question.  What makes these allegations partially troubling is that the industry as a whole seemed to be adjusting costs upward at a time when the company was assuring investors it did not need to do the same.

TriNet provides bundled HR outsourcing services to medium size companies.  These bundled services include services such as payroll processing, human capital consulting, employment law compliance and employee benefits, including health insurance, retirement plans and workers compensation insurance.  For health insurance and workers compensation services, the company does buy some third party insurance but also assumes some of the risk itself so forecasting future claims is critical to predict future revenues and net income.

This lawsuit alleges that TriNet made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse events for fiscal 2014 and 2015, including the following:

TriNet’s processes and methodologies for analyzing and accruing claims failed to properly account for historical claims trends;

TriNet’s forecasting process failed to properly incorporate relevant historical and current claims trends;

TriNet was experiencing growing claims trends in medical and workers compensation that negatively affected the Company’s current and future business prospects; and

In light of the above, TriNet’s publicly stated financial outlook did not have a reasonable basis.

Uber Spam Text Message Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that Uber sent text messages to consumers who had not signed up for the company’s services.

The TCPA prohibits unsolicited text messages to cell phones.  (A gross simplification I know.)

SO what to do if you receive 8 or so messages from Uber asking you to confirm your recently created account?

You sue of course.

The class action complaint alleges that the plaintiff Maria Vergara received up to eight text messages from Uber.  Each message apparently asked her to confirm the details of her account.  Yet according to the lawsuit, Vergara never in fact signed up for an Uber account.  

This lawsuit then seeks to verify a class of people all of whom reside in the United States who, within four years prior to the filing date of the lawsuit received one or more text message calls from Uber where the called party was not the same individual who, according to Uber’s records, provided the phone number to Uber.

The specific facts are as follows:

On June 14, 2015, Plaintiff’s cell phone rang, indicating that two identical text calls were being received. The “from” field of the transmission was identified as “(469) 275-4970,” which is a specialized telephone number utilized by Uber and its agents for the transmission of text messages en masse. The body of each text message read:

Your Uber account
verification number is:
9274. Enter this in our
app to confirm your
Uber account.

On July 18, 2015, Plaintiff was sent yet another text call from Uber that read:

Your Uber account
verification number is:
0133. Enter this in our
app to confirm your
Uber account.

Then on  August 2, 2015, Plaintiff was sent at least six (6) more text calls by Defendant
containing similar confirmation requests, yet with differing verification numbers embedded.

At no time did Plaintiff attempt to acquire the Uber application, become a customer of Uber or otherwise use Uber. Moreover, at no time did Uber confirm the ownership of the phone number to which it was transmitting text messages.

Vital Recovery Services Unpaid Overtime Class Action Lawsuit

This case alleges that two debt collection agencies violated federal and state law by not paying time and a half for overtime worked and by requiring that employees clock out and continue to work.  

The employees that are part of this lawsuit are debt collectors.  Presumably, these employees work in a call center work environment and call consumers to collect on unpaid debt.

The complaint alleges several violations:

First, that debt collectors were required to work over 40 hours per week but were not paid time and a half for all overtime hours.

Second, that the owner or manager required that employees punch out and continue to work.  This is often termed “off the clock” work.

Third, that the employer at times went into the time keeping system and changed employees hours worked.

The complaint alleges violation of federal law and Georgia law.

Strax Wellness Unsolicited Text Message Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that Strax Wellness violated federal law by sending unsolicited text messages to consumers without those consumers prior express consent.

The TCPA prohibits companies from sending unsolicited text messages to people without their express consent.  The TCPA  imposes a statuary fine of between $500 and $1500 for each text sent.  

Plaintiff Lauren Minniti alleges that on May 13, 2015, Strax transmitted a text message to Plaintiff’s wireless phone advertising its “Memorial Day Specials.”  Then on or around May 29, 2015, Strax transmitted another text message to her wireless phone advertising its “Summer Splash Specials.”   Then on or around June 15, 2015, Strax transmitted yet another text message to her wireless phone advertising a promotional discount. 

The lawsuit alleges that none of Strax’s text messages inform recipients on how to opt-out of receiving future text messages, as required by the TCPA and corresponding regulation 47 C.F.R. §
64.1200(b)(3).

The lawsuit goes on to allegedly describe the text messages.  The “from” field of such transmission was identified as “990-00,” which is the short code Strax used to send text messages.  The text messages ask the recipient to click on Internet links or call (954) 281-4112. The Internet links direct the recipient to the website www.straxrejuvenationreviews.com.

Student Aid Center Auto Calls Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that Student Aid Center violated the TCPA by placing automatically dialed telephone calls to peoples cell phones without their express consent.

Ever get those awful auto calls from random companies that drive you (and me) nuts.  Under certain circumstances the TCPA makes it unlawful for companies to engage in that marketing practice.

Student Aid Center is a self-described industry leader in the federal student loan debt relief industry. It employs hundreds at its 26,000 square foot headquarters located at Doral, Florida. 

The complaint alleges that starting on or about June, 2015, Student Aid Center (either on its own or by use of a intermediary) , placed at least one telephone call per week to the Plaintiff Mario Stecco cellular phone. The source of the telephone call was a toll free telephone number identified by Stecco’s cellular carrier as 1-888-521-4388.

The complaint goes on the allege that on more than one occasion Student Aid Center left voicemails for Stecco advertising student loan debt consolidation and/or debt relief services.  Therefore Student Aid Center’s telephone calls and voicemail messages actively sought to have Stecco purchase, enroll in or otherwise utilize for a fee one or more of Student Aid Center’s goods and/or services.  

The complaint further alerts that Student Aid Center similarly placed, thousands of these same telephone calls to individuals’ cellular telephone numbers, each of which also constituted a solicitation to purchase goods and/or services.

To round out its pleading requirements, Stecco alleges that he never provided his cellular phone number to Student Aid Center, that he never provided it with consent to be contacted via his cellular phone and that he has never conducted business with or otherwise formed a business relationship with Student Aid Center.

Airlines Antitrust Capacity Seating Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit centers on the question of whether airline executives violated federal antitrust laws by colluding to maintain “capacity discipline” – which means limiting the number of flights and seats despite increased demand and lower costs.

In 2015, four airlines control close to 80% of the air travel market in the United States: Delta, United, American and Southwest.  

The complaint alleges that Delta, United, American and Southwest conspired to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the price of domestic air travel services since January 1, 2010. 

The complaint alleges that the four airlines have taken advantage of recent consolidations to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the price of domestic air travel services by collusively imposing “capacity discipline” in the form of limiting flights and seats despite increased demand and lower
costs, particularly in the form of jet fuel costs, which make up a significant portion of costs. 

The complaint goes on to allege that the four airlines have implemented and policed their illegal agreement through, inter alia, public signaling of future capacity restrictions and publicly imploring each other to limit capacity increases. The complaint further alleges (on information and belief) that the four airlines have also secretly communicated with another, including via trade associations.

McCormick Black Pepper Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges that McCormick’s cut the amount of black pepper in a variety of its containers by 25% but failed to properly notify consumers of this pepper reduction.  

McCormick markets and sells branded McCormick® Pure Ground Black Pepper and McCormick® Black Peppercorn Grinder, and supplies store-branded tins of pure ground black pepper.

On or about June 27, 2015, Plaintiff purchased, for personal use, a tin of McCormick® Pure Ground Black Pepper, believing it was substantially filled to capacity. Plaintiff subsequently learned that this product actually contained only approximately 3 ounces net weight of ground black pepper. Plaintiff would not have purchased this product had she known that it was substantially underfilled, or Plaintiff would not have paid what she did for the product. 

Black Pepper prices have sky-rocketed since 2014.  Apparently, McCormick’s response to the increased prices was to reduce the amount of pepper in many of its standard containers and keep the container the exact same.  According tho the complaint, McCormick did modify the new weight disclosure on its containers.

This lawsuit alleges that the company should have done more.  The exact same containers have been used for decades and consumers have come to expect a certain amount of pepper in each container.  By decreasing the amount of pepper by 25% without sufficient notice arguably violates consumer protection laws.

This case also involves two lesser known statutes.  Both federal and California law prohibit certain practices called “slack-filling”, which in a nutshell prohibits using labels to hide the true amount of product.  The complaint sites these statutes but does not plead violations of with of them.

Adidas Defective Springblade Class Action Lawsuit

This class action alleges that the soles of the Adidas SpringBlade running shoes are defectively designed causing the soles to wear out prematurely.  In a nutshell, the unique design of the sole and the fact that it is glued to the upper, causes the sole to deteriorate faster than commercially reasonable.

Since running shoes are big business, Adidas tried to revolutionize the running shoe industry in 2013 when it introduced the SpringBlade.  What makes the SpringBlade unique is that the sole of the shoe features 16 forward angled blades made of high tech polymer. These blades purport to react to any environment, compressing and releasing energy to create an efficient springy push off.  Think of running on springs.

The design on the SpringBlade is allegedly different in that bottom part of the sole in most sneakers are stitched to the upper part of the sole.  The Spring blade is not stitched at the mid section of the shoe but allegedly glued.  This coupled with the harder nature of the top of the sole combine to cause the sole to wear prematurely.

The complaint is compelling in part because the plaintiff alleges that his shoes began to deteriorate after only one or two runs on a treadmill.