Latest news with #classAction
Associated Press
08-07-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
INVESTOR ALERT: Holzer & Holzer, LLC Reminds Investors of July 15, 2025 Lead Plaintiff Deadline in the Krispy Kreme, Inc. (DNUT) Class Action – Investors With Significant Losses Encouraged to Contact the Firm
ATLANTA, July 08, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Krispy Kreme, Inc. ('Krispy Kreme' or the 'Company') (NASDAQ: DNUT). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information about Krispy Kreme's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (1) demand for Krispy Kreme products declined materially at McDonald's locations after the initial marketing launch; (2) demand at McDonald's locations was a driver of declining average sales per door per week; (3) the partnership with McDonald's was not profitable; (4) the foregoing posed a substantial risk to maintaining the partnership with McDonald's; and (5) as a result, the Company would pause expansion into new McDonald's locations. If you purchased shares of Krispy Kreme between March 26, 2024 and May 7, 2025, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at [email protected], by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is July 15, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) [email protected]
Yahoo
06-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Coca-Cola slammed with class-action lawsuit over allegedly misleading drink labels: 'Such claims should be reflected'
Powerade's bold blue label promises 50% more electrolytes than the competition. However, a new lawsuit says the figure is more of a marketing spin than a scientific fact. Coca-Cola is facing a class action lawsuit over allegedly deceptive claims on its Powerade Mountain Berry Blast sports drink, Top Class Actions reported. The complaint, filed in New York by Natasha Lekwa, accuses the beverage giant of falsely marketing the drink as having "50% more electrolytes" than competing sports drinks. According to the complaint, the label implies the electrolytes will give consumers health benefits, but the actual differences in electrolytes such as sodium and potassium are too small to matter. "Such claims should be reflected in the sodium and potassium content in the labeling as required for food products, which is not the case," the lawsuit states. Lekwa is asking for a jury trial, monetary and punitive damages, and updated labeling for all affected products. When major brands build their marketing around health and performance, their claims and labels need to mean something. That's especially true for sports drinks, which people reach for during illness, heat waves, and workouts. Lekwa's complaint argues that Coca-Cola is leaning on exaggerated figures to position Powerade as a better choice when the benefits are barely measurable. This isn't the first time Coca-Cola has been criticized for misleading or harmful practices. The company remains the world's top producer of branded plastic waste, contributing millions of single-use bottles to the global waste stream each year. And while Powerade's label may play up performance, the impact of the product — from underwhelming health claims to plastic-heavy packaging — is more damaging than it seems. When you're choosing health and beauty products, which of these factors is most important to you? Cost Brand name Ingredients Packaging Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. The Powerade case is still in its early stages. Still, the lawsuit could push Coca-Cola to rethink how it markets its sports drinks, signaling to other beverage companies that vague or inflated health claims won't go unchecked. Regulators may also take a closer look at how companies advertise electrolytes and other so-called wellness benefits or even greenwashed marketing claims. In other areas of its business, Coca-Cola has made moves in the right direction. Recently, it has invested in new production facilities with sustainability initiatives. Through recycling partnerships, Coca-Cola Consolidated, the largest Coca-Cola bottler in the nation, collected more than 974 million plastic bottles last year. Yet it's clear that the beverage giant needs to do more to limit its impact on the environment. As this class action lawsuit gains steam, so does the case for holding companies accountable — not just for what they sell but for how they sell it. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
CNET
06-07-2025
- Business
- CNET
GameStop Might've Sold Your Purchase Data to Facebook: How to Claim a Piece of the Settlement
There's still time to claim part of GameStop privacy settlement. Have you bought something from video game retailer GameStop in the past five years? Did you have a Facebook account when you did so? According to an email I received awhile back, that includes me. If it includes you as well, you can claim your own piece of a brewing settlement from the company, and you've still got a few weeks to do so. Last month, GameStop agreed to pay $4.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit accusing it of violating privacy laws by tracking and sharing customer info with Facebook. While the company has denied any wrongdoing in the matter, it is nonetheless now accepting claims, with estimates suggesting that hundreds of thousands of consumers could be eligible. While GameStop -- best known for its brick-and-mortar shop locations -- has seen its fortunes decline in recent years as commerce has migrated online, it still does considerable business: about $3.8 billion in 2024. Facebook, meanwhile, doesn't say much about how much consumer data it acquires from places like GameStop but those kinds of transactions have long been key to its business, helping to create targeted advertising on the platform. That sort of practice now appears to have run afoul of certain privacy laws, prompting the lawsuit that GameStop is working to settle. Keep reading to find out everything you need to know about the settlement and, for more, find out if you qualify for 23andMe's big privacy settlement or the Fortnite in-game purchases settlement. Why did GameStop get sued? The lawsuit at the heart of this situation, Aldana v. GameStop, alleged that the company used a tracking pixel on its website to collect information on specific consumer purchases, which it then sold to Facebook. This, the suit argued, violated the Video Privacy Protection Act, a 1988 law designed to prevent the "wrongful disclosure" of rental or sales records for certain audiovisual media, including video games. What prompted the creation of a law like that back then? The public disclosure of -- here's a throwback -- Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video store rental records. While there was nothing scandalous, or even terribly interesting in those records, the release of the information highlighted Bork's claims that Americans only had privacy rights directly granted to them by legislation. Congress certainly seemed to get that point, passing the VPPA little more than a year later. In addition to the consumer payouts, this settlement also requires GameStop to stop using tracking pixels on its online storefront. Who is eligible for the GameStop-Facebook settlement? To qualify for this settlement, you need to have bought something from GameStop's website any time between Aug. 18, 2020, and April 7, 2025. At the time of that purchase, you must also have had an active Facebook account using your real name that was public. Proof of purchase is not required. When is the deadline for filing a claim? You have until Aug. 15 -- about a month and a half -- to file a claim and opt in to this settlement. To do that, complete the official form on the settlement website. How much can I get from the GameStop-Facebook settlement? Unlike other notable settlements that can sometimes pay out thousands of dollars, the offers from this settlement are much more modest. When filing a claim, you have the option of receiving a cash payment of $5 or a voucher to GameStop worth $10. You can only get one payment per claim, even if you purchased multiple items from the GameStop website during the settlement period. When will I get paid from the GameStop-Facebook settlement? When those payments will go out isn't clear but it will be sometime after the final settlement hearing in the case on Sept. 18. Stayed tuned to this page for updates as information like this becomes available in the near future. For more, here's everything to know about Apple's Siri privacy settlement.
CTV News
04-07-2025
- CTV News
$600M lawsuit that includes a Sudbury institution is in settlement talks
The suit alleges that students were physically, mentally and sexually abused at the 13 institutions – including at Sudbury's Cecil Facer School – between 1953 and April 1984. A decade-old lawsuit related to training schools for youth in Ontario – including one in Sudbury – is in settlement discussions. Toronto-based Koskie Minsky LLP initiated the suit in 2015, covering anyone who lived at the schools and who was alive as of Dec. 8, 2015. The suit alleges that students were physically, mentally and sexually abused at the 13 institutions – including at Sudbury's Cecil Facer School – between 1953 and April 1984. The time period for Cecil Facer begins in 1971, when it first opened, until April 2, 1984. The institution is scheduled to close in 2027. 'The plaintiff alleges that members of the class were physically, sexually and psychologically abused at the schools,' the lawsuit said. Solitary confinement 'It is alleged that the Province of Ontario breached its fiduciary and common law duties to the class through the establishment, operation, and supervision of the schools. 'In particular, it is alleged that the Province of Ontario failed to care for and protect class members, which resulted in loss or injury, including psychological trauma, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.' The training schools were detention facilities for children set up by the province. The suit says the students were subjected to 'cruel and degrading punishment,' including the improper use of solitary confinement and other forms of abusive punishment. The claim seeks $600 million for the estimated 21,000 survivors of the Ontario Training Schools. The suit was formally certified in December 2018. 'The training schools contained a toxic environment in which degrading and humiliating treatment of children in the Crown's care was the norm, physical, sexual, and psychological abuse was rampant.' — Statement of claim 'The training schools contained a toxic environment in which degrading and humiliating treatment of children in the Crown's care was the norm, physical, sexual, and psychological abuse was rampant, and residents of the training schools were systematically denied their dignity and basic human rights,' the amended statement of claim said. Under the Ontario Training Schools Act, children under the age of 16 could be sent to the training schools for a range of reasons, including if they were found begging on the street, were orphans, truants, had alcoholic parents or had been convicted of petty crimes. They were often sent to the schools for undetermined periods of time and weren't allowed to visit with family. The lawsuit said staff at the training schools were not qualified and 'unskilled and unsuitable for dealing with children in their care.' The Act was repealed in April 1984. 'The parties attended two days of mediation with a retired judge,' Koskie Minsky said in its most recent update. 'Settlement discussions are continuing between the parties. Please note that Koskie Minsky is not able to comment on the positions taken in settlement discussions as this information is subject to legal privilege.' For more information on the case, click here.
Yahoo
02-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Google Slammed With Massive Android Verdict
A San Jose jury ruled that Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) misused idle Android phone data without user consent, saddling users with mandatory and unavoidable cellular-data burdens while the devices were idlecosts that netted Google ad-revenue benefits. The case, filed in 2019 on behalf of roughly 14 million Californians, argued that background data collection for targeted ads exceeded any reasonable user understanding or permission. Google's defensethat users agreed to data transfers via its terms of service and suffered no harmfell flat with jurors, who awarded plaintiffs $314,646,109. Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda called the decision a setback for users and said the company will appeal, arguing the ruling misunderstands critical security and performance services. Plaintiffs' attorney Glen Summers said the verdict forcefully vindicates the lawsuit's merit and underscores Google's misconduct. The California verdict marks the first major blow but isn't the last legal skirmish: a separate federal class action on behalf of Android users outside California is slated for trial in April 2026. That case could amplify damages if plaintiffs replicate their California success nationwide. Why It Matters: A seven-figure jury award highlights the legal risks tech giants face over opaque data practices and could inspire similar suits in other states. Investors will track Google's appeal progress and the April 2026 federal trial for clues on potential additional liabilities and any resulting changes to Android's data-collection policies. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
