Class Action Roundup – Walmart, SeaWorld, The Trump Administration and More

We’re back with another compilation of the latest in class action news. Enough of the formalities, let’s get into it.

Walmart, Bloomingdale’s Accused of Extorting Shoplifters

Sure, if you steal from a store, you should expect to face the consequences – but a proposed class action filed in California federal court claims that several big-name retailers take the punishment a bit too far. The complaint accuses Walmart, Bloomingdale’s, Burlington Coat Factory, Abercrombie & Fitch, Sportsman’s Warehouse and a few others of blatantly extorting alleged shoplifters.

Here’s how it breaks down. According to the lawsuit, the stores’ loss-prevention officers approached suspected shoplifters and offered them a choice: agree to pay hundreds of dollars for an online course designed to get them back on the right track or get into it with law enforcement. The retailers, the suit claims, would then receive up to $40 for every person who signed up for the class, which was offered by a Utah business called Corrective Education Company.

The lawsuit claims that this is extortion and directly violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, but the retailers say otherwise.

For more on the case, head on over to NBC.

Federal Ruling Says Trump Administration Must Stop Arbitrarily Detaining Asylum Seekers

A Washington D.C. federal judge recently ruled that the government can no longer arbitrarily detain those seeking asylum in the U.S. The class action was filed by several civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, and claimed that the Trump administration’s policy of detaining people (even after they passed a credible fear interview and were simply awaiting asylum hearings) violated their rights.

The ACLU approves of the ruling, saying that it “means the Trump administration cannot use indefinite detention as a weapon to punish and deter asylum seekers” who are fleeing political, and sometimes violent, persecution.

If you’re looking for more on the case, you can find it over at Newsweek.

Hearst Settles Data Privacy Lawsuit

Hearst Communications recently agreed to pay $50 million to settle claims that it illegally sold its magazine subscribers’ personal information to third parties. According to the complaint, those who subscribed to Cosmopolitan, Country Living, Elle, Esquire, Food Network Magazine, Good Housekeeping, Harper’s Bazaar, The Oprah Magazine, Redbook and Seventeen may have been affected. The lawsuit claims the released data included age, religion, race, medical conditions, and income levels, among other information.

The settlement, if approved, will cover Michigan residents who subscribed to a Hearst publication before July 30, 2016.

Reuters has more on the settlement here.

Hormel (and Others) Accused of Colluding to Raise Prices on Pork Products

A lawsuit filed in Minnesota is claiming that Hormel Foods, Tyson and other companies have been illegally inflating the price of pork products. The proposed class action alleges that the companies conspired to limit the production of their products with the intent of increasing prices. According to the lawsuit, consumers may be overpaying for many household brands including Ball Park Franks, Spam, Jimmy Dean, Nathan’s Famous and Hillshire Farms.

The Seattle Times has the rest of the story.

SeaWorld Settles Auto-Renewal Lawsuit

SeaWorld has agreed to pay $11.5 million to settle claims that it illegally renewed its customers’ annual passes without their permission. The settlement is looking to compensate anyone in California, Florida, Texas or Virginia who bought an annual pass to a SeaWorld theme park.

For more on the case case, check out this Orlando Sentinel article.

L.L. Bean Return Policy Class Action Dismissed

A U.S. District Court judge has dismissed a proposed class action over L.L. Bean’s new return policy. The case argued that the change in policy harmed L.L. Bean customers because they could no longer enjoy the “100% satisfaction guarantee with no end date” that the company used to build their reputation.

The judge found that since the plaintiff failed to prove he suffered any actual damages, he couldn’t proceed with his claims. In a motion to dismiss the case, L.L. Bean argued that the plaintiff never tried to return any products he bought before February 9, 2018, when the company announced the policy change, and therefore hadn’t suffered “a concrete loss.”

If you’re looking for more on the how the case breaks down, head over to Bangor Daily News.