At the top of this week’s newsletter, you’ll find a story on the recent Noom settlement and who’s eligible to file a claim. From there, we have an ongoing investigation into SolarEdge and how the 3G sunset is affecting its customers, a recently filed lawsuit that alleges certain Murad cosmetics are unsafe for use around the eyes, and a lawsuit filed over the sale prices being advertised at Zales. These stories, along with the latest in class action settlements, can be found just below. Keep reading for more.
A settlement has been reached to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged Noom violated the law by not clearly disclosing the autorenewal terms for its “Healthy Weight” subscription. If you purchased an automatically renewing subscription to Noom’s “Healthy Weight” program through the company’s website or mobile app between May 12, 2016 and October 6, 2020 – and you did not receive a full refund or chargeback for your subscription payments – you may be able to file a claim. While Noom has not admitted any wrongdoing and maintains that its autorenewal and cancellation practices were lawful, the company has agreed to resolve the allegations with the settlement. For more information on the deal and a link to the official settlement site, head on over to this page.
If you’re a SolarEdge customer, you were probably excited about all the cool features that came with going solar. But, if you’re like the customers who’ve voiced their complaints online, you know that a bunch of those features are reportedly being phased out with the sunsetting of 3G networks – at least until old modems are replaced with expensive new ones. Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking to address the issue and investigating to see if class action lawsuits can be filed on behalf of SolarEdge customers who are being forced to pay out of pocket for modem upgrades. So, if you’ve received notice from SolarEdge that the five-year 3G cell plan that came with your solar system is being discontinued, you aren’t alone and you may be able to help get a lawsuit filed. If filed and successful, a lawsuit could give consumers the chance to get back some of the money they spent or will need to spend to replace their modems. You can find all the details on the investigation and a chance to share your story right here.
Our settlements page is always being updated. Have you checked to see if you're covered by any open settlements? You can also check out the latest settlements as they happen by following us on Twitter.
This settlement covers those who bought Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Dry-Touch Water Resistant Sunscreen, Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Face Sunscreen, or Aveeno Baby Continuous Protection Sensitive Skin Sunscreen between May 26, 2015 and April 8, 2022.
Products designed specifically to be used around our eyes should be, well, safe to be used around the eyes, right? Unfortunately, a recently filed case is claiming that this may not be the case when it comes to certain beauty products made by Murad. The proposed class action alleges that the products in question, which include certain creams and serums, are unsafe in that they contain color additives that are prohibited by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the absence of special authorization from the agency. One plaintiff claims that her eyes became “red and irritated, developed discharge, and began to swell and tear” after using one of the products only once. Head over to this page for the case details, as well as a list of potentially affected products.
We’ve touched on fake sale prices and phantom markdowns a handful of times before, and the latest to be sued over the alleged practice is Zales. If you’re unfamiliar, it works like this: a company will list a higher, “original” price on its discounted items even though they were never meant to sell for that amount, so customers are left thinking they got a good deal when, as far as the company is concerned, the product was never on sale to begin with. The lawsuit against Zales alleges that although it’s well established that false reference prices violate federal and state law, the company has nevertheless listed fake “original” prices on its e-commerce websites in an attempt to increase sales of engagement rings and other jewelry. The suit goes on to claim that Zales has effectively exploited its customers, who the company knows value a good bargain and have little information, aside from a product’s price, on which to base their understanding of an item’s value. If you’re a Zales customer, you can read up on all the details here.
~ Forward to a friend ~
Know someone who might be interested in our newsletter? Why not forward this email to them?