Class Action Roundup – June 17

Welcome to this week’s roundup post! Get comfortable as we explore the top stories from around the web.

Netflix Sued by the People It Pays to Watch Netflix

Apparently, Netflix hires people to watch its programming library so they can pick the best images and videos to advertise for the streaming service. But it sounds like the job isn’t all glamour and glory. Two of the people who took the position are now suing Netflix, claiming that they were misclassified as independent contractors when they actually function like employees. Definitely check out this article by Eriq Gardner over at the Hollywood Reporter for more on the story. At the time the article was written, the plaintiffs were seeking overtime pay, holidays, health insurance and 401(k) plans – but the judge ruled that the case is to be resolved through arbitration, according to additional sources.

Century 21 Accused of Making Unsolicited Sales Calls

Century 21 is the latest company to be hit with a robocalling lawsuit. Allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Century 21 reportedly made several unsolicited sales calls to consumers – even if they were listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. The proposed class action is requesting either $500 for each negligent violation or $1,500 for every knowing or willful violation. Check out Marian Johns’ article at legalnewsline.com for more information.

Uber Settles Driver Background Check Lawsuit

Uber has agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle claims that it didn’t let job applicants know that it would be using background checks to make hiring decisions. Using a background check to decide whether or not to hire someone is fine if the applicant knows about and authorizes it – otherwise it violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act, exactly what this suit alleged Uber to have done. Uber may choose to appeal the decision, but if it loses or withdraws its appeal, the settlement fund could increase to $9 million. Stop by Reuters and read Dan Levine’s article covering the settlement. It’s a good read.

Quaker Facing Lawsuit Over Maple Quantities

Quaker is facing a proposed class action claiming that it doesn’t use enough real maple in its maple-flavored oatmeal for it to be advertised as a maple-containing product. The suit says that Quaker’s Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal doesn’t use maple syrup or maple sugar, so the product’s name is deceptive. Scott Holland has a great piece on this over at the Cook County Record. If you’re interested in reading more, you should definitely check it out.