September 3, 2021 – $1.75M Settlement Receives Final Approval
In late June 2021, a judge granted final approval to a $1.75 million settlement with Yodel regarding the allegations detailed on this page.
Under the terms of the settlement, bankrupt Yodel Technologies, LLC will pay roughly $140 to consumers who submitted valid claims, with the possibility of another $10 payment in the event that uncashed checks leave money in the settlement fund.
In a June 11 motion for final approval of the settlement, the plaintiff’s attorneys praised the deal as “a great result” for consumers, especially in light of Yodel’s financial situation.
According to the settlement website, which contains more details about who is covered by the deal, payments were expected to be distributed in August 2021.
The settlement with Yodel comes on the heels of a separate $1.85 million deal reached with NorthStar in November 2020 through which claimants received roughly $182 each.
Importantly, each settlement requires the respective defendant to stop placing telemarketing calls using a prerecorded message or soundboard technology to consumers who never provided their express written consent to receive the calls.
A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Alarm Services, LLC and a company doing business as Yodel Technologies that claims the defendants violated provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act with their “wide scale illegal telemarketing.” The plaintiff says that he received two unsolicited phone calls that attempted to sell him a home security system using a prerecorded message, but that the company did not identify itself or use a valid Caller ID. Upon investigation, he discovered that Northstar had hired a third-party identified to him as “Yodel Technologies” to place these illegal telemarketing robocalls, according to the complaint. He claims he notified Northstar that the automated calls were unlawful, but the issue was “largely dismissed” by the defendants. The suit argues that the calls invaded the plaintiff’s privacy, interrupted his home life, were made without his consent, and failed to provide information that would allow him to avoid future calls.