Class Action Roundup – Hulu, Google, Sea World, Lumber Liquidators, Capital One, More

We are knee-deep in that time of year collectively known as “The Holiday Season.” Feelings of goodwill, cheer and possible holiday-driven anxieties aside, let’s catch up with what you may have missed since Thanksgiving.

Advocacy Groups File Class Action Against Hulu Alleging Discrimination Against Blind Viewers

On November 20, the American Council of the Blind, along with the Bay State Council of the Blind and two individuals, filed a proposed class action lawsuit in U.S. district court in Massachusetts over Hulu’s alleged failure to provide blind and visually impaired individuals with, among other accessibility accommodations, separate audio description tracks for the online streamer’s content. The 21-page complaint, covered online by Engadget, further takes Hulu to task for its alleged failure to make its menus accessible to screen-reading software commonly utilized by blind and visually impaired Internet users to navigate websites.

“Hulu’s exclusion of blind individuals from its online video-streaming services significantly impairs the blind community’s access not only to entertainment, but to the cultural capital that media consumption offers,” the plaintiffs argue, citing violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Hulu is not the first company of late to be scrutinized in a proposed class action over alleged online ADA shortcomings. ClassAction.org has recently compiled a few posts documenting the trend of lawsuits alleging online violations of the ADA, with new cases over similar allegations coming across our desks almost daily.

Judge Dismisses Gender Bias Class Action Against Google

Reuters has reported a San Francisco judge has, at least for the time being, dismissed a lawsuit in which plaintiffs alleged Google pays female employees less than men and provides women with fewer opportunities for career advancement. Superior Court Judge Mary Wiss said Monday the complaint was “inappropriate,” reporter Daniel Wiessner writes, because it was filed on behalf of all women who worked for Google in California. Judge Wiss did allow the plaintiffs 30 days to file a new complaint, but on behalf of only women who faced alleged pay discrimination based on their gender.

Read Wiessner’s writeup on these developments over at Reuters’ website.

More Google: Company Facing New Lawsuit in UK Over Supposedly Skirting iPhone’s Safari Privacy Protections

What Fortune calls a groundbreaking lawsuit has been filed in the United Kingdom against Google in which the plaintiff, a veteran consumer advocate, claims the search giant sidestepped privacy protections for the iPhone’s Safari web browser and collected browsing information from unsuspecting users between June 2011 and February 2012. What makes the lawsuit so significant is this is the first instance of a “representative action” being filed in the U.K. involving alleged data protection abuses, Fortune writes. The plaintiff in the case, Richard Lloyd, filed the suit on behalf of all individuals who used Safari in England and Wales during the aforementioned time period with the browser set on its default security settings, and have not opted out of Google’s tracking within its own systems. The plaintiff estimates roughly 5.4 million people may be covered by the litigation.

Fortune writer David Meyer notes Google has already shelled out serious money to settle similar allegations in the United States. In the time since the U.K. case’s filing, MediaPost writes, the advocacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center has insisted a federal appellate court toss a previous $5.5 million settlement against Google over Safari privacy allegations, arguing the terms of the settlement allow Google to continue to surveil users with little relief for class members.

Read Meyer’s writeup of the case over at the publication’s website.

Shareholder Lawsuit Against Sea World Over “Blackfish” Fallout Granted Class-Action Status

United States District Court Judge Michael Anello has granted class-action status to a 2014 lawsuit in which SeaWorld shareholders allege they were misled about the extent of the damage caused to the company by the award-winning “Blackfish” documentary. Per a report from the Orlando Sentinel, the plaintiff investors claim in the class action that SeaWorld execs ignored and denied the backlash caused by the film, with internal emails included in the complaint reportedly showing the defendants complaining about the movie hurting business. The Sentinel notes it wasn’t until August 2014 that SeaWorld publically admitted the documentary hurt park attendance.

Orlando Sentinel reporter Gabrielle Russon has more.

$36M Lumber Liquidators Settlement Leaves Out Those Injured by Chemicals in Flooring, Attorneys Claim

HardwareRetailing.com, an industry outlet published by the North American Retail Hardware Association, reported this week that attorneys representing consumers who claim they fell ill from chemicals in Lumber Liquidators’ flooring say their clients are left out of October’s $36 million class action settlement. Citing a November court filing first dug up by The National Law Journal (paywalled), the attorneys, who represent 75 consumers, argued “injured plaintiffs” were excluded entirely from the settlement, with the attorneys themselves saying they should have been involved in the settlement negotiations. The lawyers reportedly want a federal judge to reject the settlement, and instead “continue to consider the case in court.”

HardwareRetailing.com assistant editor Kate Klein has further coverage at the publication’s website.

Appeals Court Rules Capital One Can’t Escape Overdraft Fee Case

A proposed class action case against Capital One Financial Corp over its alleged practice of imposing illegal overdraft fees was brought back to life late last week by a federal appeals court in Manhattan. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Reuters writes, ruled Capital One’s overdraft fee rules were unclear, stating the lower court judge who previously oversaw the litigation was wrong to toss out the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff behind the lawsuit claims Capital One imposes illegal overdraft fees when it settles transactions, rather than when it authorizes transactions at the point of sale. Reuters points out transactions settle after merchants request payments, a process that can take days.

Reporter Jonathan Stempel’s article can be read here.

FTC Settles Negative Option Lawsuit with Lingerie Company Adore Me for $1.3 Million

A report published on AdLawAccess.com says the Federal Trade Commission in late November announced it had reached a settlement with Adore Me in which the online lingerie retailer agreed to pay back customers who enrolled in a “negative-option membership program” more than $1.3 million.

AdLawAccess.com’s Gonzalo E. Mon explains that through Adore Me’s VIP program, a member would be charged $39.95 per month unless the individual either bought apparel or pressed a “skip” button during the first five days of that month. The problem, Mon writes, is Adore Me buried in its terms and conditions a disclosure stating that customers’ unused credits could be forfeited “for a number of reasons.” The FTC said the company “took unused credit amounts away from consumers who canceled their memberships or initiated chargebacks with financial institutions to dispute their transactions with the company.”

Mon’s full writeup of the settlement can be read at AdLawAccess.com.