News in Brief October 17 – Bank of America, Gucci, Starbucks and More

Bank of America Background Check Case Tossed by Judge

Bank of America will not have to face a Fair Credit Reporting Act class action over its policy of conducting background checks on potential contract workers. The plaintiff, a former hourly employee, claimed he was sent criminal background check and consumer report forms after he had accepted an employment offer from the bank. In his complaint, the plaintiff said the release form lacked “clear and conspicuous” FCRA-mandated disclosures. Summarily, the judge ruled the plaintiff lacked standing to sue Bank of America because he failed to show he suffered any harm from the bank’s policy. Furthermore, the judge noted, the plaintiff’s complaint had not fallen within the two-year statute of limitations for Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuits.

Settlement Ends Gucci Lawsuit Over Customer Shopper Info

Iconic fashion brand Gucci will pay roughly $3.4 million to settle a lawsuit alleging the company asked customers for personal information during credit card transactions. The company will provide nearly 28,000 class members in California with either a $40-$120 voucher or a 15 percent discount on any purchase up to $10,000. Filed in 2014, the suit specifically claimed Gucci violated the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act by asking customers to unnecessary provide mailing addresses, zip codes, email addresses and other personal information in order to complete credit card transactions, even for in-store purchases.

No Foam: Judge Ices Starbucks Underfill Class Action

A judge in Illinois has axed another class action against Starbucks that claimed the coffee conglomerate underfills its cold drinks. At the center of ruling, documents show, was the judge’s belief that a “reasonable consumer” would know that, if he or she were to order an iced beverage, the container would contain both ice and liquid. “Indeed, a reasonable consumer who purchases an ‘iced’ drink, expects there to be ice in the drink, and would be upset if there wasn’t,” the judge said, adding that the plaintiffs’ expectation of a 24-ounce iced drink containing 24 ounces of only fluid was unreasonable.

Lyft Sued Again Over TCPA Text Violations

A second proposed class action has been filed against Lyft claiming the ride-hailing service fell on the wrong side of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) after sending unsolicited texts through an automated dialing system. The plaintiff alleges Lyft sent him text messages for which he never gave consent using equipment specifically designed to text consumers en masse. The proposed class includes people across the U.S. who have received text messages from Lyft sent via an autodialer within the last four years.

Jack in the Box Hit with FLSA Class Action

Jack in the Box is facing a class action claiming the burger chain violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by misclassifying store managers as exempt from overtime pay even though they carry out the same tasks as nonexempt workers. The plaintiff, a Jack In The Box employee for more than 25 years, says the company purposely asks salaried employees to do the same duties as nonexempt workers to avoid paying overtime. Nonexempt workers’ duties, the plaintiff claims, include working the drive-thru, unloading product deliveries, and cleaning restaurants. Additionally, the suit claims Jack in the Box workers with a fixed salary are paid less than the federal minimum wage.