Its not clear what prompted the investigation

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has opened an investigation into manufacturers of infant formula to determine if the various companies engaged in collusion on their bids for state contracts, in violation of antitrust laws.

Companies bid against one another to win contracts to supply food for the Women, Infants and Children program, which includes infant formula. The FTC says any collusion on bids would likely increase the cost of the product.

Abbott Labs, the maker of Similac infant formula, told the Wall Street Journal that it is cooperating with the investigation. Lawyers for the company have said they are unaware of any collusion and are in the dark about what triggered the probe.

The industry has drawn regulators attention since the COVID-19 pandemic, when a shutdown of Abbotts main production facility, coupled with supply chain issues, created shortages in the infant formula market.

In February 2022, Abbott recalled powder formulas, including Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare, that were manufactured at its Sturgis, Mich., plant. The firm said it had received complaints related to Cronobacter sakazakii or Salmonella Newport in infants. Cronobacter sakazakii can cause fever, poor feeding, excessive crying, or low energy in infants.

In June, Abbott Labs reopened the Sturgis facility but it took several weeks to make it fully operational.

But the payment may be less than your credit card rewards

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

Google, now part of parent company Alphabet, has agreed to settle a lawsuit, paying consumers $23 million. Just about everyone in the country could be eligible for a small slice of the pie.

In 2013 Google found itself a defendant in a class-action lawsuit alleging that the search giant violated users' privacy by selling their search terms to other websites.

Besides the obvious privacy issue, the plaintiffs pointed out that search terms often contain sensitive personally identifiable information (PII). They said the terms could include names, addresses and even credit card numbers.

Heres whos eligible for compensation:

• People who used Googles search engine between Oct. 25, 2006, and Sept. 30, 2013

• When using it, people who clicked on a link in the search field

Thats it. As you might expect, millions of Americans are eligible to receive compensation under the settlement.

$7.70 payout

The estimated payment per person which can vary depending on how many people make a claim is only $7.70. But thats a lot more than the original amount. The initial settlement was for only $8.5 million, meaning claimants would get only four cents.

To make a claim, go to the claims website and then register here. Once registered, the website will assign a class member ID, which is necessary to file for a claim. Once you register, the site will email you an individual class member ID number.

Theres no time to waste since the deadline for registering is July 31, 2023. The settlement would resolve the legal claims in the lawsuit against Google, in which the company denies all claims made in the complaint.

The final approval hearing for all the claims will take place on October 12, 2023.

The minimum payment from the class-action settlement is $324

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

Did you get some pesky telemarketing calls from DirecTV a few years ago? If you did, youre in luck.

The TV provider has settled a class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in West Virginia, claiming DirecTV made illegal telemarketing calls to people whose numbers are registered on the National Do Not Call list. The company agreed to pay $16.85 million.

You are included in the settlement if your telephone number is one of 113,997 known numbers that received calls.

And unlike many settlements in which wronged consumers get very little compensation, the law firm handling the settlement says eligible class members will receive at least $324, with an average payout of $461.

The plaintiffs in the suit said DirecTV violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which bars robocalls that use pre-recorded messages. The original plaintiff, who lives in West Virginia, initiated the action in 2017 after she said she was called several times, even though her number is on the National Do Not Call list.

How to find out if youre eligible

You can easily find out if you are eligible for compensation. The settlement website has an automated phone number check here. You simply enter your phone number or numbers and the system will instantly tell you whether you have some money coming to you.

If you are eligible you can submit a claim here. Eligible class members may receive a postcard with a Notice ID that can be used to sign into the system.

If your number is eligible under the settlement, you have until Aug. 7 to make a claim. The last hurdle will be a court hearing on Aug. 24, at which time the court will decide whether to finalize the settlement.

Compensation will probably depend on how many people apply

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

The clock is ticking on Facebooks $725 million class-action lawsuit settlement. To be considered, eligible class members must file claim forms by August 25, 2023 at 11:59 PM PT.

Are you eligible? Chances are pretty good that you are. If you had a Facebook account between May 2007 and December 2022 youve got a shot.

This particular settlement involves privacy lapses and the unauthorized use of Facebook user data to target advertising.

In 2018, Facebook revealed that one of its clients, the political marketing firm Cambridge Analytica, had gained unauthorized access to Facebook user data in order to target political ads on behalf of 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump and the campaign for the UK to leave the European Union.

The settlement was reached in December 2022 and was the largest class action settlement of its kind at that point, according to the law firm that filed the action. It ended several years of lawsuits and produced Facebook, now Meta policy changes designed to improve user privacy.

To submit a claim, simply go to the settlement website, where you will be asked to enter some information. For example, youll be asked to confirm whether you lived in the U.S. for any period between May 2007 and December 2022 and whether you used Facebook during that time.

Additionally, youll be asked to provide at least one email address associated with your Facebook account. Eligibility is only open to U.S. residents.

If youve since deleted your Facebook account, it doesnt matter. The claim form only asks you to provide the time period that your Facebook account was active.

Some gift cards are exempt, such as Bed Bath and Beyond and phone cards

Gifters love gift cards. However, more than half of the people who receive one apparently dont, leaving $3 billion an average value of $116 per person on the table.

When someone buys or receives a gift card, they might think they might be able to use them until the end of time. Sorry to tell you, but thats not true.

The 2009 federal Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act allows gift cards to expire after five years. However, some states have even longer expiration periods.

Despite these laws, there are businesses that think they can play a gift card holder before the card has reached its legal expiration date. Consequently, consumers may not be able to use their gift cards and basically have to write off their purchase as a bad idea.

What your rights are with gift cards

In addition to the law forbidding the expiration of a gift card for five years from the date the card was purchased, consumers have other rights.For one thing, if the expiration date listed on the card is earlier than the five-year limit, the money can be transferred to a replacement card at no cost.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) says that consumers need to understand that businesses can charge an inactivity fee, however, ifa card hasn't been used for one year. Those inactivity fees can be charged once a month. There may, however, also be fees associated with buying the card or replacing one that has been lost or stolen.

The last rule is that the card must clearly disclose its expiration date, and the card or packaging must clearly disclose any fees.

Now, consumers can take new legal action

But, alls not lost. Consumers who still have these expired gift cards may be able to take legal action and recover the value of their expired funds. And twice in recent years, consumers have done just that.

In 2019, consumers took legal action against REI, claimingthat the retailer expired gift cards after two years. In 2021, upset gift card recipients filed a similar class action lawsuit against AT&T, charging that the company sent new customers gift cards which expired after 150 days; and in some cases, AT&T sent the cards shortly before they expired, forcing the customer to use them sooner or lose them completely.

According to TopClassActions,attorneys are eager to assist gift card purchasers and recipients whose gift cards improperly expired before the time allowed by law. To take legal action, consumers must still have the expired gift card.

If you can check that box, then youre generally qualified to apply for the lawsuit, but you also need to have a specific gift card to be eligible. Those gift cards have to be:

• Issued on a prepaid basis

• Redeemable at a specific business that sells products or services

• Issued by a business that sells a product or service (does not include entertainment venues or theaters)

The following gift cards are not eligible:

• Phone cards or Bed, Bath & Beyond cards

• Reloadable gift cards

• Prepaid debit or secured credit cards

• Loyalty, reward or promotional cards

• Gift certificates issued only in paper form

You can fill out the form on this page for a free case evaluation.

The complaint alleges the chemicals pose a health risk

If youre a parent who has purchased school uniform pieces from The Childrens Place, you may want to get rid of them sooner than later.

A new class action lawsuit, filed by Angala Garland, found that the clothing store was selling and marketing these items to parents, though they contained dangerous chemicals per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), or forever chemicals.

PFAS got the name forever chemicals because they never degrade in the environment they contaminate drinking water, soil, air, food, and just about everything. This exposure becomes problematic for consumers health especially young kids.

A lower price could comewith health risks

Garland brought the case to Bradley/Gombacher LLP after purchasing the uniform for her child at The Childrens Place. The pieces are available in-store, online, and on the companys Amazon storefront.

In 2022, she purchased: two multi-packs of boysuniform polos, one multi-pack of boys uniform long-sleeve polos, two multi-packs of boys pull-on chino uniform cargo pants, one multi-pack of boys boys uniform chino shorts, a boys uniform stretch chino pant, a boys uniform zip-up mock neck sweater, two multi-packs of boys uniform active fleece joggers and two boys uniform zip-up hoodies.

Garland went with The Childrens Place because they were offering uniform pieces at a good price. She read through all of the tags and labeling, read through the companys website, and never saw any disclosures related to PFAS or other dangerous chemicals.

After her four-year-old child wore the uniforms through the 2022-2023 school year, she had the items tested at a third-party lab to confirm the presence of PFAS. Ultimately, the results showed that the clothes contained some amount of the chemicals.

Now, Garland is seeking restitution from The Childrens Place for herself, as well as any other parents across the country who have purchased these items.

Kids are at a higher risk

According to the official complaint, children wear these uniforms five days a week for 40 hours a week. The complaint says this is consistent exposure to these chemicals that come with a number of related health risks.

The young children who wear [these] school uniforms are uniquely vulnerable and susceptible to the adverse health incomes associated with PFAS due to their low body weight, sensitive development, prolonged periods of wear during the school week, and direct oral exposure due to frequent hand-to-mouth behaviors, the complaint reads. The levels of PFAS in the school uniforms pose a greater body burden and higher health dangers to children than to adults exposed to the same levels of PFAS.

The lawsuit alleges that The Childrens Place was aware of the presence of chemicals in the uniforms, and hasnt stopped selling them or made any changes.

Long-term dangers from PFAS

PFAS are found in everything from fast food packaging, water- and stain-resistant childrens products, and many personal care products.

PFAS have been found to significantly affect consumers hormone levels, which can have an effect on womens reproductive health or developmental concerns in children. Long-term, there is also a higher risk of obesity, high cholesterol, cancer, and a compromised immune system.

Hundreds of flights were canceled during the first year of the pandemic

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

If you were booked on a Delta Airlines flight that was canceled in the first year of the pandemic and were denied a refund, you probably have some money coming to you.

The airline has settled a class-action lawsuit brought by several passengers who say Delta violated federal law when it refused to refund the fare. When an airline cancels a flight it is required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) rules to provide a refund, not a voucher for a future flight.

Specifically, the people who will benefit from the settlement are people who purchased a non-refundable ticket on Delta for a flight to depart between March 1, 2020, and April 30, 2021. If Delta canceled the flight and the traveler was denied a request for a refund, the passenger should receive compensation from the settlement.

According to the law firm administering the settlement, the amount of compensation will vary, determined by several factors including the cost of the ticket.

Delta agreed to settle the suit without admitting any wrongdoing. The amount of the settlement was not disclosed, according to TopClassActions.com.

Eligible consumers can choose to receive a cash payment or a credit with the airline. They can also be paid for any remaining unused credit they may have received from the airline, plus interest.

Important dates

Here are some important dates:

• Aug. 31, 2023 - The deadline to be excluded from the settlement

• Sept. 15, 2023 - The deadline to submit a claim form

• Oct. 5, 2023 - The final approval hearing for the settlement

• Oct. 5, 2023 - The deadline to submit a valid claim form

To receive compensation you must submit proof of purchase, such as the ticket number and flight date.

You can get the claim process started here. The settlement website provides more information.

This may not be the last airline settlement over denied refunds. Passengers of many other carriers reported the same experience during the early days of the pandemic.

According to DOT, if your flight is canceled, most airlines will rebook you for free on their next flight to your destination as long as the flight has available seats.

If your flight is canceled and you choose to cancel your trip as a result, you are entitled to a refund for the unused transportation even for non-refundable tickets. You are also entitled to a refund for any bag fee that you paid, and any extras you may have purchased, such as a seat assignment.

Any customer whos purchased these products over the last six years are eligible for the settlement

CVS has come under fire for its store-brand maximum strength lidocaine products patches, cream, sprays, and roll-ons.

The packaging claims to provide pain relief for 8-12 hours, which the plaintiffs Monique Bell, Tree Anderson, and Melisssa Conklin have disputed. The plaintiffsclaimthat the patches in particular dont adhere to the body, sometimes fall off within minutes, and arent durable enough to withstand day-to-day actions, like standing, walking, or sitting.

While CVS has denied the allegations, the court hasnt ruled in either partys favor. Instead, the case has reached a settlement, with CVS agreeing to pay $3.8 million to compensate anyone whopurchased any of these products between December 11, 2017, and July 18, 2023.

Who is eligible?

Nearly two dozen CVS-brand lidocaine products are included in the class action suit, and all have been marked with the maximum strength label.

Consumers who have bought products with the following SKU numbers could be eligible for the settlement: 376649, 405343, 977934, 328522, 405623, 250483, 385037, 249024, 235554, 383998, 238921, 197229, 450467, 371271, 188721, 256563, 196728, 256518, 384034, 234274, 834344, and 388642.

This list of items is not exhaustive; any purchases of CVS-brand lidocaine products that are labeled maximum strength could yield a piece of the settlement.

Filing a claim

To be eligible for a piece of the settlement, consumers must have purchased one of the above products during the given window. The deadline to submit a claim for the settlement is Monday, November 20, 2023.

Consumers are eligible to submit a claim even if they dont have a receipt for their purchase though that may affect how much they get back. Those who have a receipt for their purchase may recover $4.50 per unit for each receipt. Without a receipt, consumers will only get $4.50 for up to three items purchased.

Ultimately, what consumers receive from the settlement will determine how many valid claims are submitted.

Claim forms can be submitted online or forms can be requested over the phone at (833) 747-6949.

Plaintiffs claim the burger is much smaller than the company shows it in ads

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

A past Burger King advertising slogan proclaimed, It takes two hands to handle a Whopper! It looks like the fast food chain will have to prove that in court.

Some Burger King customers have filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, claiming todays Whopper the chains signature sandwich is actually a good bit smaller than the burger depicted in ads and on menu boards.

This week, U.S. District Judge Roy Altman in Miami rejected the companys motion to dismiss the suit and instead, said the case will be heard.

Specifically, the plaintiffs contend Burger Kings visual depiction of the Whopper makes it appear to be 35% larger than it actually is. They claim that amounts to false advertising.

The suit, which claims Burger King began shrinking the size of the Whopper as early as 2017, seeks to require the company to show the actual size of the burger in promotional images.

Shrinkflation is a growing trend

As we reported a year ago, consumer complaints about shrinkflation began to grow as inflation began to build in the economy.

To remain competitive, some manufacturers of food products have maintained the same price but have subtly reduced the amount of the food inside the packaging. Some companies are upfront about the trend. In Quartzs report on the situation, it found all sorts of nuanced tweaks.

Inflation is hitting everyonewe took just a little bit out of the [Doritos] bag so we can give you the same price and you can keep enjoying your chips, confirmed a Frito-Lay representative.

Likewise, representatives at Mondelez which makes Nabisco Wheat Thins and Proctor & Gamble which makes Crest toothpaste confirmed reductions in their products volumes.

While Crest 3D White does now sell a 5 oz tube, its 4.1 oz tube shrunk to 3.8 oz. Bounty, according to a representative at Proctor & Gamble, got better as it got smaller since the paper towels are more absorbent than they used to be, Quartzs Clarisa Diaz wrote.

Can you call it a fruit drink if theres no fruit?

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

Consumers are increasingly holding companies accountable for the claims they make, taking words and images at face value. The courts are listening.

If you show an ad featuring a large hamburger, then the real thing should measure up, say the plaintiffs who sued Burger King last month, claiming the actual size of the Whopper is 35% smaller than the picture in the ad.

Now its Starbuck's turn. A group of consumers has sued the coffee chain, claiming its refresher drinks with fruit like mango in their names actually contain no fruit. The plaintiffs, who are seeking class-action status, originally sought damages of $5 million.

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, claims the drinks in question are mostly water, grape juice concentrate, and sugar. The plaintiffs argue they would not have paid the premium price Starbucks charged if they knew the drinks did not contain any of the fruit in the name. Refreshers cost between $3.95 and $5.95.

Starbucks asked for a dismissal

Attorneys for Starbucks asked the court to dismiss the complaint, arguing that no reasonable consumer would be misled by the products names into thinking that the products contain the missing fruit.

They further argued that by putting the name of the fruit in the name of the drink, the chain was only suggesting a flavor, not an actual ingredient. If there was any confusion on the part of the customer, they could simply ask a barista, the defense pointed out.

U.S. District Judge John P. Cronan denied the companys motion to dismiss the case, writing that the plaintiffs adequately made their case that a significant portion of the general consuming public could be misled by the names of the at-issue beverages.

The clincher may have been a perceived lack of consistency. The judge noted that some other Starbucks beverages specifically coffee beverages are named after their actual ingredients. The judge denied the motion to dismiss the case.

The case is similar to the Burger King lawsuit, which was allowed to proceed on claims of false advertising.

You have until December 13 to make a claim

If you use recycling bags especially Hefty or Great Value (Walmart) brand recycling bags you could qualify for as much as a $50 settlement payment.

As a result of a class action settlement, Reynolds Consumer Products, the bag manufacturer,agreed to pay $3 million to settle claims that it wrongfully marketed its trash bags as recycling bags despite their inability to actually be recycled at numerous solid waste disposal facilities.

Reynolds disputed the allegations and the court has not made any determination about who is right, but Reynolds apparently felt it was better to fork over the $3 million and be done with this once and for all.

Proof of purchase? $50! No proof? $12

The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Hefty and/or Great Value brand recycling bags between July 20, 2018, and Aug. 30, 2023.

Under the provisions of the settlement, anyone who filed to be a class member can receive $2 per purchased product. With proof of purchase, consumers can claim up to 25 products, for a $50 maximum payment. But get this --even those without proof of purchase, win too. They can claim up to six products, for a maximum payment of $12.

A full list of the Hefty and Great Value brand Recycling bags included in the Settlement can be found here.

All thats required to receive a settlement check is to file a request either online or via mail by no later than December 13, 2023. You can find those details here and answers to any questions about the lawsuit and claim process here.

The fast food chain was accused of hiking up prices on delivery orders

Did you order Chick-fil-A during the COVID-19 pandemic? You might be eligible to get a piece of the companys $4.4 million settlement.

Six customers in Georgia filed the suit, claiming that Chick-fil-A was touting delivery fees that were either free or in the lower range. However, that same delivery bargain translated into menu prices that were20% to 30% higher than customers ordering in-store or pick-up.

Chick-fil-A secretly marks up food prices for delivery orders by a hefty 25% to 30%, the complaint states. In other words, the identical order of a 30-count chicken nuggets costs approximately $5-6 more when ordered for delivery than when ordered via the same mobile app for pickup, or when ordered in-store.

While Chick-fil-A didnt admit to being guilty in the case, the companydid agree to the $4.4 million settlement.

How to claim your portion of the settlement

If you were affected by Chick-fil-As raised delivery prices, youre eligible for either a $29.25 cash payment or gift card. There is a $1.45 million cash settlement fund and a $2.95 million gift card fund.

TopClassActions first reported the case and said that if the total number of claims exceeds the funds in the settlement account, consumers can expect a proportionate payout from the company.

There are two ways to see if youre eligible for the settlement. First, Chick-fil-A provided email addresses of customers who could qualify for the settlement to the settlement agency. Consumers should check their email to see if theyre eligible.

Another option is to visit the Chick-fil-A website. The company has agreed to post a claims form notice on its website where customers can input their personal information name, email address, phone number, and certification of eligibility to see if they qualify for the settlement. That notice is not yet live on the website,

Prices arent changing anytime soon

Despite the lawsuit and the settlement, Chick-fil-A has no plans to make any changes to its pricing.

The report said that delivery prices will remain higher than prices for in-store or pickup orders. However, the settlement has mandated Chick-fil-A to flag this price difference on its website and mobile app, so consumers are aware of it before placing their orders.

Close to 400,000 customers should get a check within the next 90 days

The jig may finally be up for junk fees. First the White House, then the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and now the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has put its foot down, stopping internet phone service provider Vonage from charging its customers junk fees. Not only junk fees, but creating obstacles to those who try to cancel their service.

The FTC claims thatbeginning in 2017, Vonage used dark patterns to cloud the process for any consumer who wanted out of their Vonage deal. But, that wasnt all Vonage also allegedlycontinued to illegally charge customers even after those customers spoke to a Vonage representative on the phone and officially requested their service be canceled.

Vonage better hope its accountants have been saving some rainy day funds because, under the proposed court order, Vonage will be required to pay $100 million in refunds to consumers harmed by the companys actions. Plus, it will have to make its cancellation process simple and transparent and stop charging consumers without their consent.

If you want to know how bad it was for some Vonage customers, all you have to do is read what Anjali of Sugar Land, Tex., saidin their ConsumerAffairs review of Vonage.

I am an attorney and business owner and frankly, this has been the absolute worst professional and personal experience of my life with regard to a company for services, Anjali wrote.

For two years, I was unable to get one human being to respond to my requests regarding legitimate issues with voice quality, equipment, loss of voicemails, spam calls, and overall quality of service. In the past week, I called four times to attempt to cancel my service when an increase in fees was made without my knowledge for the past sixmonths. I was stone-walled each time and demeaned and representatives refused to assist me.

If you are or were a Vonage customer, heres what you can expect

The FTC said it is sending payments by mailto 389,106 consumers. When ConsumerAffairs checked the agency's dashboard, it said the "median" distribution for the Vonage case is $197 per person.

Recipients should cash their checks within 90 days. The agency said that eligible consumers who did not have an address on file will receive a PayPal payment, which should be redeemed within 30 days.

If you have questions about your payment, you should contact the refund administrator, Epiq, at 1-877-525-4728 or visit the FTC website to view frequently asked questions about the refund process.

By the way, the FTC never requires people to pay money or provide account information to get a refund, so if you get a phone call from someone pretending to be from the FTC or from Vonage and they ask you for money, hang up the phone and call the FTC.

The company denied the charge and says it will fight it in court

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

Nearly every industry is trying to learn how artificial intelligence (AI) can improve workflow and profits. As the technology quickly develops there are bound to be conflicts.

One such conflict has arisen in a lawsuit filed against UnitedHealthcare. The plaintiffs the estates of two elderly men who recently died claim the health insurance giant used AI to review their relatives claims and to wrongly deny them.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Minneapolis, claims UnitedHealth wrongfully denied claims filed by the two patients, both of whom had Medicare Advantage Plans. As a result, the two families said they were forced to pay $210,000 for the men to receive treatment ordered by their doctors.

The plaintiffs contend that UnitedHealth began routinely denying these types of claims in 2020 when it acquired Navihealth, a company that provides post-acute care management services.

STAT News Investigation

A recent investigation by STAT News reported that Navihealth uses a computer algorithm to predict the length of treatment required for acute illnesses and injuries, such as those treatments provided in rehab centers and nursing homes. According to the investigation, the algorithm makes its predictions by accessing 6 million similar cases.

The plaintiffs further contend that the algorithm is prone to mistakes. In fact, the complaint claims the AI tool overrules patients physicians 90% of the time. Many times, the plaintiffs say, the denials have been overruled on appeal.

UnitedHealth denies the claims made in the lawsuit. Optum Health, a UnitedHealth subsidiary, released a statement to Ars Technica saying the tool is not used to make coverage decisions.

The tool is used as a guide to help us inform providers, families, and other caregivers about what sort of assistance and care the patient may need both in the facility and after returning home, a spokesperson said. Coverage decisions are based on CMS coverage criteria and the terms of the member's plan. This lawsuit has no merit, and we will defend ourselves vigorously."

TMCC says it has already addressed most of the areas of concern cited by the CFPB

If you bought a vehicle and financed it through the Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, you might be getting a check in the mail.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has ordered Toyota Motor Credit Corporation to pay $60 million in consumer refunds and fines for operating an illegal plan to keep borrowers from canceling product bundles designed to increase their monthly car loan payments.

The agency said that the company denied refunds or refunded incorrect amounts on the bundled products and knowingly sullied consumers credit reports with false information.

ConsumerAffairs found many examples of that claim on the CFPBs complaint database.

I have explained to [Toyota Motor Credit] on numerous occasions that I am in the process of buying a home, and because of the false information that they are reporting I can not secure financing for my home with my lender because of their negative reporting. I have proof that they receive my payments on time, but they refuse to correct their mistakes and get the correct information to the Credit Bureau, read one particular complaint.

Toyota may be the one in the CFPBs crosshairs for now, but the agency is letting other auto lenders know that it may not be the last.

"Toyota's lending arm illegally withheld refunds, made borrowers run through obstacle courses to cancel unwanted services, and tarnished their credit reports," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. "Given the growing burdens of auto loan payments on Americans, we will continue to pursue large auto lenders that cheat their customers."

'Hurry up and sign this now'

The agency said that thousands of consumers complained to Toyota Motor Credit that dealers had lied about whether these products were mandatory, included them on contracts without the borrowers knowledge, or rushed through paperwork to hide buried terms.

I agreed to purchase the [vehicle] in good faith [but the company] piled on a large volume of paperwork which I later discovered had hidden fees which they built into the loan which put the burden of the remaining lease payments into my load, complained another consumer.

This is not what I had agreed to and there was no explanation of the charges. Since I was rushed into signing the deal late into the night, I didn't notice it.

The agency said that in certain situations, Toyota Motor Credit used a scheme it devised to retain the revenue from these products by making it complicated to cancel, and then failing to provide proper refunds for consumers who were fortunate enough to get their cancellation taken care of. The CFPB added that one of the hoops Toyota forced customers to try and jump through was a dead-end cancellation hotline.

The company also falsely told consumer reporting companies that borrowers had missed payments, and it failed to correct consumer reporting errors it knew were wrong, the CFPB said in announcing the action.

Toyota responds

ConsumerAffairs reached out to Toyota Motor Credit for a response to the CFPBs action and the company had this to say:

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (TMCC) is committed to doing whats right for our customers and strives to consistently follow all federal and state laws in our sales, customer service, and administrative practices. We are dedicated to ensuring we demonstrate our core value of Respect for People in every aspect of our relationship with customers.

TMCC admitted to no wrongdoing but agreed to the terms of the consent order with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to fulfill our commitment to continually provide ever-better service to our customers. In most instances, TMCC has already addressed the areas of concern cited by the Bureau. We will continue to enhance our practices to deliver the best possible customer experiences.

What wronged consumers can expect

According to the CFPBs announcement, Toyota Motor Credit will pay nearly $32 million to consumers who did not receive refunds on unearned GAP and CLAH [insurance] premiums and also pay over $9.9 million to consumers who tried to cancel their GAP or CLAH coverage but were unable to do so.

Additionally, Toyota Motor Credit will pay over $6 million to consumers impacted by false information sent to a consumer reporting company. It will also pay at least $52,000 to consumers who were not given accurate refunds when they canceled their vehicle service agreement.practices, as well as the Fair Credit Reporting Act and its implementing regulation.

As is customary with CFPB actions like this, most consumers who are eligible for redress do not have to do anything other than wait to be contacted.

A spokesperson for Toyota Motor Credit told ConsumerAffairs that impacted customers will be notified via a to-be-agreed-upon independent administrator. Payments will vary depending on which category of the consent order pertains to their individual situation.

There are forms to fill out and you'll need some proof

In the never-ending world of bad actors and the class action lawsuits that show up on their doorstep, there are three that might be of some value to you if you bought or used a certain product.

First, theres Spirit Airlines. The company agreed to an $8.25 million settlement to end claims that it charged illegal carry-on bag fees, even though it promised travelers that they could bring a bag with no additional charge.

Such was apparently the case of Stefanie Colavito of Ft. Myers, Fla., who told her story in a ConsumerAffairs review:

There is no value in flying with Spirit. Every service, including carry-on bags,incurs an extra cost. That being said, this is okay as long as the costs are transparent. I paid for a premium seat and a carry-on bag. Unbeknownst to me, upon check-in for the return flight, one must also submit payment again lest be charged $100 for a carry-on at the gate, Stefanie wrote.

The problem is there is no prompt to tell you that payment must be submitted again for the return flight. My seat upgrades were paid for once and applied to departing and returning flights.

If you, like Stefanie, had a similar experience on Spirit and booked a flight through Expedia, Kiwi, CheapOair, CheapTickets, Travelocity, or Bookit between Aug. 31, 2011and May 3, 2017, for a flight after Aug. 1, 2010, andpaid a carry-on bag fee, you may have money coming from the settlement.

To file a claim, all you need to do is fill out the paperwork on this website. The terms of the settlement spell out that class members can receive up to 75% of the carry-on bag fee they paid for their first Spirit Airlines fee during the above period. However, TopClassActions notes that actual refunds may be lower than 75%, depending on the number of claims filed.

Buy bed linens at Macys?

Macys has also agreed to settle a lawsuit and get it off its books. This one is about CVC Sheets and a claim that was made alleging that those sheets were promoted as having a higher thread count than they actually did.

The settlement applies to consumers who purchased one or more sets of those CVC Sheets from a Macys store anytime between Nov. 8, 2013, and March 24, 2023.

The resolution for this suit is $10.5 million and to be part of the settlement class, you fortunately do not need proof of purchase. However, if you do, your check will be a little fatter. Claimants who provide proof of purchase or whose purchases can be confirmed by Macys can receive up to $7.50 for every unit of CVC Sheets they purchased.

You can file your claim online at this website.

Bought some Juul products, you say?

After years of law firm after law firm running their billable-hour clocks, arguing all that the world has thrown at Juul, the e-cigarette company, Juul agreed to pay $255 million to settle claims against it earlier this year. Now, Altria Juuls owner along with other related companies have decided theyve had enough, too, and have agreed to pay an additional $45 million to settle the remaining claims.

With that move, class members now have until an extended deadline of Feb. 5, 2024, to file a claim. Anyone who has not submitted a claim may now do so; anyone who opted out of the original Juul settlement can opt back in and submit a claim, TopClassActions reports. Those who filed a claim in the original Juul settlement do not need to submit a new claim in the Altria settlement.

To be eligible for the settlement, you have to fill out a claim form at the settlement website. The amount you can receive varies depending on how old you were when the Juul purchases were made and if you have documentation or not.

Essentially, those caveats play out like this as TopClassActions reported:

• Documentation is required for combined Juul purchases of $300 or more. Payments are capped at $300 if you dont have proof of purchase.

• If you were under the age of 18 when you made the initial purchase, your settlement will be multiplied by four when assigning settlement shares.

• As far as dates are concerned, if you made the initial purchase between 2015 and 2018, your share is supposed to be multiplied by two.

• However, purchase totals where the initial purchase was made between 2019 and 2022 will not be multiplied when assigning settlement shares.

Refunds include AT&T, Vonage, Publishers Clearinghouse, Fortnite, Western Union and dozens more

Have you left money on the table that you didnt even know about? Almost every single month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) releases millions of dollars in refunds to consumers refunds stemming from actions the agency has taken against companies for doing the consumer wrong.

Cumulatively, the agencys mail room has sent out a lot of checks $12.4 billion in refunds has been returned to more than 11 million consumers since mid-2018, stemming from 151 cases.

Some of the larger refunds from the more well-known brands make the news, such as the latest Vonage settlement, but some dont, and some like the Progressive Leasing refunds sort of fade into the background, yet still have tens of millions in checks that consumers havent cashedyet.

The FTC says that it tries, but cant always find every single consumer thats due a refund. Finding current contact information for eligible recipients is a challenge, the agency said.

Active FTC refund programs

ConsumerAffairs thought we would spread the word a little and see if we can find our readers a little extra mad money that could come in handy this holiday season. Weve compiled a list of every active refund program that the FTC has published. Heres that list, along with a link to the FTCs explanation of the refund and, where available, contact information on who to call to get your refund.

The settlement covers consumers in six Southern states

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

Some Family Dollar customers in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee will get $25 gift cards to settle a class-action suit, stemming from rat infestation at a West Memphis warehouse.

The case was heard in federal court in Memphis and the proposed settlement is contingent on approval by the court. The suit was filed on behalf of Family Dollars customers that were served by stores receiving merchandise from the warehouse. The discovery of the rat problem led to the closure of 400 Family Dollar stores.

How to make a claim

Consumers who shopped at any of the affected stores between January 2020 and Feb. 18, 2022, may be eligible for the settlement.

To make a claim, submit it here.

Some customers have already received settlement notices via email. Those who have are instructed to input the notice ID and confirmation code in the appropriate fields on the settlement website.

If you shopped at one of those stories during that time you can still make a claim, but you will need the store number, as well as the approximate dates you sent shopping.

Consumers have until Jan. 9, 2024 to file a claim.

The tech company is required to send funds to consumers and state heads

If youve purchased apps from the Google Play Store, or made an in-app purchase through Google Play, between August 2016 and September 2023, you could be eligible for a portion of the companys $700 million settlement.

The news of the settlement comes after states across the country sued Google for a number of activities related to its Play Store.

The charges includeovercharging users and creators, as well as creating a monopoly, forcing Android users to only download apps from the Play Store, and forcing app developers to handle all payments through the Google Play Store which Google then gets commission.

No company, no matter how large or powerful, is allowed to corner a market and use its influence to overcharge consumers and smother competition, said New York Attorney General Letitia James. For too long, Google abused its market share to unfairly raise prices and block developers from selling products in other app stores.

Google is making things right

In addition to the settlement, Google has committed to allowing Android users freedom of choice when it comes to how and where they download apps. As for app developers, they will now have options when it comes to how they collect payments, rather than being forced to go through the Play Store.

This settlement builds on Androids choice and flexibility, maintains strong security protections, and retains Googles ability to compete with other OS makers, and invest in the Android ecosystem for users and developers, Wilson White, Googles vice presidentof government affairs and public policy, saidin a statement. Were pleased to resolve our case with the states and move forward on a settlement.

What can consumers expect?

Over 102 million consumers are expected to be eligible for a portion of the $700 million settlement, which breaks down as follows:

• $630 million: This money will go directly to eligible consumers who have purchased apps in the Google Play Store or made in-app purchases through the Google Play Store between August 16, 2016, and September 30, 2023.

• $70 million: This money will go directly to funds for states to utilize when consumers are involved in similar cases.

Consumers who are eligible for a piece of the settlement wont have to do anything to receive their money. They will be contacted about their eligibility and they can opt to receive a direct deposit, Venmo or PayPal transfer, or a mailed check.

Additionally, consumers final payouts from the settlement will depend on how much money theyve spent in the Google Play Store over the last several years. The more money spent, the more money youll be eligible for in the settlement.

Customers can receive as much as $100.

If youre a Verizon Wireless customer, youre likely due part of a $100 million arrangement the company has entered into to settle a class action lawsuit.

The suit claimed Cellco Partnership -- Verizons official name --deceived its customers by not making clear certain fees in some of its wireless service plans. In other words, junk fees that were unfair and not adequately disclosed.

As described by TopClassActions, the settlement class includes current and former Verizon account holders who received postpaid wireless or data services between Jan. 1, 2016 and Nov. 8, 2023 and paid for an Administrative Charge and/or Administrative and Telco Recovery Charge.

As other companies have found,Verizon says it considers it "desirable to resolve this Action" and in its "best interest" rather than fight it tooth and nail.

How to get your share of $100 million

If you qualify as an eligible class member, the wheels are already in motion to get you your fair share. The $100 million that Verizon is paying will be distributed to class members via check or electronic payment.

The process will begin with the class members getting a minimum of $15 for each account, plus $1 for each month that their Verizon account was charged those administrative fees or recovery fees. There is a cap, however. The settlement says that the maximum amount to be paid per account is $100.

And theres a second however, too. There is a possibility that the total amount may be lower if there are fewer class members filing valid claims and each class member has been a Verizon subscriber for a shorter period of time.

The last hoops you have to jump through are these according to TopClassActions:

• Class members may file their claims online or via mail.
• Claimants must provide their Verizon Wireless phone number and contact information and must choose a form of payment.
• Those who received a settlement notice via mail or email must also provide their notice ID and confirmation code.
• Claim forms must be submitted by April 15, 2024.

Heres the link to the claim form.

The lawsuit claims that the company deceived consumers about the presence of lead in the cups

Stanley tumblers have taken the world by storm in recent months. The cups drew a lot of public attention and interest after becoming an internet phenomenon, and then quickly came under scrutiny for containing lead.

Now, the manufacturer of the popular cups, Pacific Market International (PMI), is being sued by four California women in a class action suit for allegedly deceiving consumers about the presence of lead in the tumblers.

PMI had a duty to disclose its use of lead before enticing millions of customers to unwittingly buy its drinkware, the suit states. Instead of allowing customers to decide for themselves and their families whether to accept any risks associated with using a lead-contaminated drinking cup, PMI kept customers in the dark so as not to interfere with its bonanza of influencer-driven sales, especially to young women.

Is there lead in Stanley cups?

The short answer: yes. But its more complex than that.

To keep drinks cold, Stanley tumblers use stainless steel. At the bottom of each cup, there is a small pellet that contains lead, which is the stainless steel vacuum seal insulation.

Should that seal come off, consumers would have direct exposure to the lead pellet while drinking from their Stanley cups. However, according to comments from the company, the likelihood of that happening is very slim.

Our manufacturing process currently employs the use of an industry standard pellet to seal the vacuum insulation at the base of our products; the sealing material includes some lead, the company explains on itswebsite. Once sealed, this area is covered with a durable stainless steel layer, making it inaccessible to consumers.

The company also explained that all cups and tumblers are eligible for a lifetime warranty should any of the seals break.

What are the details of the lawsuit?

Though PMI has been forthcoming in its use of lead in the manufacturing process of its Stanley cups, the lawsuit alleges that this hadnt come out until recently. Meanwhile, the cups had generated a great deal of internet buzz prior to that.

PMI has marketed its products to the public for years as a safe, practical item especially suitable for young women, the suit states. But PMI did not disclose its use of lead in manufacturing until January 2024. Rather, it advertises its cups as being BPA-free and made of stainless steel, while omitting another key ingredient used in its vacuum seal: lead.

The suit also states that all four women bought the cups, containing lead, with no disclosures or warnings about the lead, and they wouldnt have bought the cups or spent as much as they did on a cup had they known they contained lead.

The plaintiffs are requesting that Stanley discloses the use of lead or any other toxins in its products, as well as several undisclosed damages.

The retailer has settled a class-action lawsuit for $45 million

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

Attention Walmart shoppers: You may be eligible for compensation if you purchased bagged fruit or meat at a Walmart store between Oct. 19, 2018, and Jan. 19, 2024.

The nations largest retailer has agreed to pay $45 million to settle a class-action suit alleging the company sold food that was measured by weight for more than the advertised price. For example, the categories include weighted pork, meat, poultry and seafood products that have a price-embedded bar code.

The fruit includes organic oranges, grapefruit, tangerines and navel oranges sold in bulk in bags. The plaintiff in the suit claimed that Walmarts point-of-sale machines would artificially raise the weight of the weighted goods, even if the products were marked at a discounted Rollback price. As a result, the bill was higher than it should have been.

According to Top Class Actions, the store advertised weights for the bagged fruit that didnt match the actual weight. The complaint also alleges food sold by weight and that wasmarked down often had a discrepancy between the advertised per-pound price and the final price that the consumer paid.

Walmart disputes the charges leveled in the lawsuit but said it agreed to the settlement to resolve the matter.

Fairly small payments

As with most class-action settlements, individual consumers are not in line to receive a hefty payment. Those who have kept receipts will get the biggest payment.

Claimants who attest to buying 1-50 products will receive $10; claimants who purchased 51 to 75 products will receive $15; those who purchased 76 up to 100 products will receive $20; and claimants who attest to purchasing 101 or more products will receive $25, Top Class Actions reports.

Consumers with proof of purchase, on the other hand, could receive up to $500, but they would have to have a lot of receipts since payments will be 2% of the price of the covered food items.

Consumers can file their claims here. Youll find a complete list of the covered meat and seafood products here.

Meet the fighter who bet this company to save user-generated content like yours

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

In late February 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court heard two cases in which web giants from Facebook to Reddit to TikTok are fighting to retain their freedom to pull down user posts they believe shouldnt see the light of day.

At stake in the courts decision, expected in June, is the future of social media and user-generated content, including consumer reviews.

James R. Hood finds the moment a little surreal. Fifteen years ago, the founder of ConsumerAffairs battled in court for the freedom to NOT pull down user-generated contentin his case, posts written by wronged consumers that powerful foes were trying to squash.

Hoods landmark win at the Court of Appeals in Nemet Chevrolet vs. ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. paved the way for years of Internet freedom that should not be taken for granted.

Without the Nemet case law, said Zac Carman, the current CEO of ConsumerAffairs, the Internet would not have user-generated content and there would not be social networks as we know them.

Now Hood is angry that the state governments of Florida and Texas want to reverse the precedent, limiting websites editorial control of user-generated content that he risked his livelihood and ConsumerAffairs to win.

Although Im no longer involved with ConsumerAffairs, said the longtime journalist, news executive and entrepreneur, its a daily dose of pleasure for me to see that it and other consumer sites continue working on behalf of consumers without fear of censorship or interference.

Speaking truth to power

ConsumerAffairss fight in 2009 was to stop businesses from bullying websites into silence with lawsuits. While the law appeared to be on his side, in harsh reality Hood almost had to shut down his company in the legal struggle.

At the dawn of the World Wide Web, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act of 1996 with 26 words in Section 230 that seemed to confirm user comments as protected speech. Section 230 declared that Internet sites, in Hoods paraphrase, could not be held liable for what third parties posted, much as the phone company cant be held responsible for what people say on the phone.

The law had never received a legal challenge by the time Hood first began allowing consumers to post reviewsmany of them negativeabout the products or services they had received. Those in-depth user accounts became ConsumerAffairs.com in 1998, essential reading for alert consumers.

The complication, Hood discovered, was that corporations took strong exception to critical user accounts and comments, and also to his follow-up reporting.

ConsumerAffairs served as one of the first product safety alerts. Prior to the Internet, Hood said, you would not know that an F-150 truck burned up in Maine one day and in Oklahoma a week later. There was just no way to pull that information together. And that's what our site was doing. We accidentally invented something.

Businesses were aghast, angry and aggrieved, Hood said, when he wouldnt pull down posts they didnt like. They hired lawyers to sue us and hackers to attack us.

Years of lawsuits and tension came to a head when a New York car dealer sued ConsumerAffairs over a customer review that it claimed was libelous.

He was a small car dealer, but I poked around and saw he had some high-powered legal help that also represented a certain national association of car dealers, said Hood, who ultimately steered ConsumerAffairs through six or seven lawsuits but would never forget this one. I told my good local law firm here in Virginia, I think we're in trouble here. They're mad and theyre not going to go away.

The case was subterfuge to try to shut us down basicallyto drag it out and see if they can bankrupt us, he said.

Nemet Chevrolet vs. ConsumerAffairs.com Inc.

Eventually, after grueling months of depositions, a key ruling in his favor, and then Nemet Chevrolets appeal, the case wound its way to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, one step below the Supreme Court. The mainstream media wasnt paying much attention, but those in publishing and First Amendment circles were. So were Internet entrepreneurs who were in the midst of a social media Gold Rush.

This case resulted in a lot of nail-biting in the digital world, Hood said. If we had lost, it could have invalidated 230 and left websites vulnerable to lawsuits from just about anyone who objected to just about anything.

His own nails were also suffering. He was the owner and CEO. It takes big bucks to get a case that far through the system, he said. That case nearly bankrupted us, the company and me. That was about the time my spouse and I said, Weve got to get serious about selling this company.

The arguments in 2009 before the Fourth Circuit will sound familiar to anyone who has followed the Supreme Courts current cases. Nemet argued that we had edited and categorized complaints from its customers, thereby making our reviews content creation, as opposed to a simple conduit where consumers could vent, Hood said.

Meanwhile, ConsumerAffairs cited Section 230 as its defense, noting the law said Internet sites could not be held liable for what third parties posted. The 1996 law was about to get its first legal challenge.

The justices ruled in favor of ConsumerAffairs, saying the car dealer hadnt made any cognizable argument that the ConsumerAffairs practice of contacting a reviewer to ask a question amounted to content creation. (Its still our practice to contact customers to ask them questions about a company.)

Assuming it to be true that Consumeraffairs.com contacted the consumers to ask some unknown question, the justices wrote, this bare allegation proves nothing as to Nemet's claim Consumeraffairs.com is an information content provider.

The legal win, Hood recalled, helped entrench Section 230 as settled law. It also immunized ConsumerAffairs and presumably other sites fueled by user content against future nuisance suits.

When angry businesses pressed their lawyers to sue us, the attorneys would do a quick look and advise that suing ConsumerAffairs was a losing proposition. We had the law on our side, Hood said.

Then and now

Hood sold the company to current CEO Zac Carman in 2010 but remained as editorinchief until he retired in 2017, as the digital world rapidly changed. Social media became embroiled in controversy over which posts it would allow but didnt have to fear defamation lawsuits.

Corporations went from being largely indifferent about the consumer experience to blasting out customer service surveys after any and every transaction.

That brings us to the cases currently before the Supreme Court, which Hood says have an Alice in Wonderland quality about them.

New state laws in Texas and Florida want to reverse the now-established precedent on the grounds that content moderation can equal censorship. The new laws permit the government or lawsuits to force sites to carry content they dont want to.

Are those laws constitutional? That is what the U.S. Supreme Court is considering.

Hood believes the framers would frown at the new laws as government censorship, only in reverse. While Americans have the right to free speech, he said, they dont have the right of access to a site owned by a private company.

The framers left no doubt that publishers should be free to publish without interference from the government, leaving it up to the citizenry to read all sides and make their own decisions, Hood said.

If you are due compensation you must file a claim to get it

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

Attention Verizon Wireless customers: the deadline for filing a claim in the companys $100 million junk fee settlement is coming up fast.

Under the proposed settlement, Verizons parent company, Cellco Partnership, has agreed to pay $100 million to customers who were allegedly deceived by not making clear certain fees in their Verizon Wireless plans.

To be eligible, customers must have been enrolled in a Verizon postpaid plan between Jan. 1, 2016 and Nov. 8, 2023 and paid for an Administrative Charge and/or Administrative and Telco Recovery Charge.

It is important to note that only customers who file a claim will be eligible to receive compensation. The deadline is coming soon - April 15, 2024. The claim form may be found here.

You might get $100

Many settlements pay very little to people who make claims but this one might be worth the effort. The maximum payout is $100 and the longer you have been a Verizon Wireless customer, they more likely you are to receive the maximum.

The lawsuit changed the fees were unfair and not adequately disclosed and is part of a growing pushback against companies that derive an increasing part of their revenue from fees instead of services.

The process will begin with the class members getting a minimum of $15 for each account, plus $1 for each month that their Verizon account was charged those administrative fees or recovery fees, with the payment capped at $100.

Its also worth noting that the settlement does not eliminate the fees in question. Verizon will continue to charge them but now, will fully disclose them.

If youve purchased groceries at the retailer, you could be eligible for a piece of the settlement

Consumers who have purchased groceries from Walmart could be on the receiving end of up to $500 as part of the companys latest settlement agreement.

The company recently came under fire for overcharging its customers for grocery items that are sold by weight meat, poultry, fish, oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit, for example.

The lawsuit alleged Walmart falsely inflated the weight of those types of items, mislabelled the weight of bagged produce and overcharged for sold-by-weight clearance products, thereby forcing customers to pay more for them than their lowest advertised price (Rollback prices).

Walmart denies the allegations and maintains that it has committed no wrongdoing. Nonetheless, it believes that a settlement is in the best interest of both parties and has agreed to a $45 million settlement.

Are you eligible?

To be eligible for a portion of Walmarts $45 million settlement, consumers must have purchased specific sold-by-weight grocery items at any Walmart location in the U.S. and Puerto Rico between October 19, 2018, and January 19, 2024.

How much money you end up with will depend on if you have documentation of your purchases. Those who have held onto their receipts over the last few years are going to walk away with the most cash back.

For those who have proof of their purchases, the settlement will provide 2% of the total amount of eligible items purchased up to $500. If you dont have your receipt, you can still get up to $25 back from the settlement depending on how much youve purchased from Walmart in the last six years. The breakdown looks like this:

• $10 back for buying of up to 50 lbs. of eligible items

• $15 back for buying between 51-75 lbs. of eligible items

• $20 back for buying between 76-100 lbs. of eligible items

• $25 back for buying over 100 lbs. of eligible items

How to file a claim

To get your portion of Walmarts settlement, youll need to file a claim either online or by mail no later than June 5, 2024.

If youre unsure if your purchases are eligible for a piece of the settlement, the official claims website has a section that breaks down all of the item codes for each item involved in the suit. Consumers can also use the search bar on the site to look for specific things.

The final hearing is scheduled for June 12, 2024, and anyone eligible for the settlement should expect to receive their payments after that.