Class Action Roundup – March 30, 2017

Wells Fargo On the Hook for $110M Settlement Over Fake Accounts

The accounts may have been fake, but the settlement, once approved by a judge, will be very real.

CNN Money reports Wells Fargo has agreed to a $110 million settlement that will end class action lawsuits alleging the disgraced bank opened millions of fake accounts and attached consumers’ names to other products without authorization. According to CNN Money, the settlement will most likely cover numerous lawsuits, including one filed in California in May 2015 and 10 other cases, and will reportedly cover “all persons” who allege the bank “opened an account in their name, submitted an application or enrolled them in a product or service” between January 1, 2009 and the execution of the settlement.

Of note in the Wells Fargo saga is its decision to not enforce mandatory arbitration clauses that would have required injured customers to resolve their allegations in closed arbitration hearings, rather than in open court. To date, Wells Fargo has already paid more than $3 million to cover upward of 130,000 supposedly unauthorized accounts.

Writer Matt Egan has more details of the preliminary agreement over at CNN Money.

Consumers Hit Microsoft with Class Action Lawsuit After “Botched” Windows 10 Upgrades

A BleepingComputer.com report says a proposed class action lawsuit filed by three Illinois consumers aims to take Microsoft to task for problems allegedly caused by its Windows 10 upgrade, which the case claims destroyed users’ data, damaged computers and was essentially forced onto users.

In the 22-page complaint, the plaintiffs claim that to perform software updates, Microsoft “takes advantage” of the access it has to users’ machines and sometimes “places unrequested icons on the consumer’s computer.” This scenario, the lawsuit claims, is how many consumers were allegedly roped into upgrading their computers to Windows 10 without full knowledge of what they were getting into, and regardless of whether they wanted the upgrade or not:

“A great number of people have installed the Windows 10 system inadvertently or without full realization of the extent of the download. Once downloaded, the Windows 10 system does not have an option for its deletion,” the complaint reads, adding that the typical Microsoft user “will not have the expertise to remove the system” without the help of a professional.

Check out BleepingComputer.com writer Catalin Cimpanu’s page on the lawsuit here. The full complaint can be read here.

Grocery Shopping Startup Instacart to Settle Workers’ Class Action for $4.6M

Recode’s Jason Del Ray writes grocery delivery startup Instacart will pay $4.6 million to settle a proposed class action filed by independent contractors responsible for picking out and delivering users’ groceries. The contractors who filed the suit alleged 18 wage and hour violations ranging from improper tip pooling to Instacart’s alleged failure to reimburse the workers for expenses.

In addition to its monetary component, the settlement—which contains no admission of fault from Instacart—includes a requirement for the company to change its business methods pertaining to fees that many customers, to the dismay of proposed class members, reportedly incorrectly assume are tips. In a February 2017 piece, Recode sternly alleged Instacart was “playing games with its workers’ pay” and took particular exception to how difficult the company made it for customers to find the tipping option.

The settlement is described by Recode as a “drop in the bucket,” as Instacart is reportedly fresh off a new $400 million investment, pegging the company’s value at around $3 billion.

Catch up on the Instacart settlement with Jason Del Ray’s article at Recode.

Approved $4M PayPal Settlement to End Almost Seven-Year Class Action Lawsuit

Consumer Affairs reports that a U.S. district court judge has given the OK to a $4 million settlement that will put to rest a years-long class action that alleged PayPal closed users’ accounts and kept the money and interest stored within. It’s evident, though, that the deal is the capstone to a litigation process mired with setbacks and derailments.

After the first class action was filed by named plaintiff Moises Zepeda in 2010, a second individual filed a suit against PayPal and eBay over similar allegations. In 2011, a global settlement was reached between all parties, Consumer Affairs writes, but even with this in place, one attorney reportedly attempted to reach individual settlements that ultimately added years to the litigation's lifespan.

Learn more about the terms of the PayPal settlement agreement from Christopher Maynard’s piece on ConsumerAffairs.com.

Class Action Alleges Eatsa Does Not Cater Enough to Those with Visual Impairments

San Francisco tech-centric food company Eatsa is the defendant in a proposed class action lawsuit that claims its automated kiosks are unlawfully inaccessible to blind and visually impaired customers. NBC Bay Area reports Eatsa, whose fully automated system allows customers to order meals on their smartphones or from in-store iPads, allegedly does not utilize accessibility software, such as dictation services, nor allow individuals to insert headphones into its ordering kiosks.

According to the lawsuit, even though Eatsa does have humans on staff to help customers in need of assistance, they can only be called through a feature on the company’s exclusively visual ordering platform.

Dive into the case with NBC Bay Area’s report here. Eatsa’s statement on the litigation can be read over at ReCode.

Settlement Reached in Harbor Freight Lawsuit Over Misleading “Sale” and “Compare at” Tags

Harbor Freight will settle a class action lawsuit that claimed it misled consumers by selling its products at purported “sale” and “compare at” prices even though the higher prices on which those price claims were made never really existed. The deadline to file a claim is August 7, 2017, The Consumerist reports, with a hearing for final approval of the deal set for July 7.

Filed in Ohio, the case alleged that despite Harbor Freight’s pricing claims, its products, in truth, were not sold at their true prices for long enough—that is for at least 28 of the preceding 90 days—to be considered “on sale.”

Learn more about the lawsuit and settlement with Laura Northrup’s piece for The Consumerist and at the official settlement website.