Archive

Significant Developments in 3M Earplug Multidistrict Litigation

A federal judge in Florida, overseeing the 3M earplug multidistrict litigation (MDL), has taken decisive action against duplicative cases and overlapping representation. Judge M. Casey Rodgers dismissed several claims post the October 11 deadline, aimed at addressing these issues. This order affects 3,548 cases with unresolved overlaps, where plaintiffs had the same name but different IDs and law firms. The ruling designates the primary counsel who filed the first case as the representative for each claimant, dismissing all subsequent related cases with prejudice. This development follows the tentative $6 billion settlement reached in August, meant to resolve claims of hearing damage caused by 3M Co. combat earplugs. The judge also highlighted fraudulent activities targeting claimants, with scammers impersonating Archer Systems LLC, the company handling the settlement.

Uber Driver’s Wage Dispute Arbitrated by California Federal Judge

In a significant ruling, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered arbitration for a former Uber driver’s wage dispute, a part of a larger independent contractor misclassification case. Christina Ferreira, the ex-Uber driver, had her Fair Labor Standards Act claims moved to arbitration based on an agreement she signed with Uber subsidiaries. Judge Tigar’s decision underscores Uber’s status as a third-party beneficiary capable of enforcing the arbitration agreement. Ferreira’s case, which sought to represent a collective of Uber drivers classified as independent contractors, highlights the ongoing legal debate over the rights of gig economy workers. The ruling emphasizes the legal complexities surrounding employment classifications and arbitration agreements in the evolving gig economy landscape.

NAR Faces Legal Challenges Following Missouri Jury’s Verdict

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) is set to appeal a Missouri federal court’s verdict in a case alleging commission rate fixing. The jury found that the NAR and brokerages like HomeServices of America and Keller Williams conspired to fix commission rates, potentially leading to a $5 billion award for overpayments. This verdict is part of a broader legal challenge against the NAR, including a proposed nationwide class action with potential damages reaching $200 billion. The case focuses on the NAR’s influence in the real estate industry and its commission rules. Legal experts note the significant implications of such a large verdict and its potential impact on the NAR’s future. The case highlights ongoing concerns about market competition and pricing in the real estate sector.

The Class Action Case Update is presented by Audet & Partners, LLP, a national class action and complex litigation law firm based in San Francisco, California.  If you would like a free, confidential case evaluation to determine whether you may have a claim for compensation in any one of our active class action cases, please contact us either by completing and submitting the inquiry form on the right side of this page, or by giving us a call at 800-965-1461.

Class Action Law Update – April 24, 2023

Class Action Case Update – December 16, 2022

Facebook algorithms accused of age and gender discrimination while displaying ads.

Real Women in Trucking, has filed a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accusing Meta Platforms (parent company of Facebook) of systemic age and gender discrimination while displaying ads to its Facebook users. The organization representing women in the trucking industry has sought injunctive relief and damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination in Employment along with similar local and state laws.

To further their point, Real Women in Trucking have alleged that despite women being 54% of the total Facebook users and employers requiring Facebook to send job ads to all persons across age groups and genders, in some cases employers have received applications that are over 99% male and from persons below 55 years.

Specifically, the women’s advocacy group referred to 75 trucking ads in their complaint which Facebook displayed to 94% men and 5% women.

Similarly, they have also alleged that Meta’s algorithm is far more likely to show ads of conventionally masculine jobs (e.g., firefighting, trucking, etc.) to men as opposed to women. It may be noted here that the EEOC declared way back in 2019 that the use of age or gender-related algorithms are a violation of existing discrimination laws.

Proposed class action against Apple’s AirTag by stalking victims

A proposed class action by Lauren Hughes of Texas and a New York woman identified as Jane Doe has accused Apple’s AirTag to have significantly enhanced the ability of stalkers to find the exact location of their victims while simultaneously failing to adequately warn its victims of such tracking.

AirTag is a device meant to help people keep a track of lost items. However, AirTag found itself in a tough spot even before its market release for its potential to be used for stalking given its compactness, accurate tracking, and low price point.  Post-which Apple claimed to have made it stalker-proof by sending out notifications to iPhone users if it detects an unknown AirTag moving with the device. However, this leaves out Android users who account for more than 40% of the total market share.

Jane Doe who was in the midst of a contentious divorce found an AirTag in her daughter’s bag. Similarly, Lauren Hughes who had moved homes after instances of stalking by her ex-partner received a notification on her iPhone notifying her of an unknown AirTag in her vicinity. Post which Ms. Hughes was able to trace an AirTag in her car.

As such, the complaint seeks to represent a total of 4 classes which include IOS and Android users who were either tracked by AirTag without consent or at-risk-of stalking classes.

The suit has sought injunctive relief and damages while accusing Apple of design defect, negligence, and violation of New York and California statutes inter alia.

Juul Labs reaches an in-principle settlement with plaintiffs in federal multi-district litigation

Juul Labs has entered into an in-principle settlement covering 4 separate matters comprising more than 8500 personal injury cases, 1400 government-entity cases, and 34 tribal cases. The recent multi-district litigation settlements come in a long line of Juul’s settlements with other states. The terms of the settlement remain undisclosed as of now.

The settlement relates to e-cigarette maker Juul’s misleading marketing and sales practices, misrepresentations relating to the safety of their devices, etc. On its behalf, Juul viewed the proposed settlement as a major step in securing the company’s path forward. The US District Court is expected to soon hold a hearing to review the proposed settlement.

Class Action Case Update – November 25, 2022

Veterans accuse Citibank of non-compliance with servicemen-related lending requirements

A class of Military Veterans have filed suit against Citibank accusing it of violating laws in place to facilitate easy and cheap les nding to military members. The veterans have alleged that Citibank failed to comply with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, Military Lending Act, and Truth in Lending Act along with violating other contractual and fiduciary obligations.

Laws governing the extension of credit to servicemembers inter alia restrict the amount of interest chargeable to a servicemember, when incurred before he is called to active duty.

Interestingly the suit alleges that Citibank while giving the illusion of offering servicemembers benefits in excess of those available under law fails to pass on the statutorily mandated benefits by virtue of the drastic increase in the interest and fees it charges, once the servicemember finishes active duty.

Further, one of the plaintiff’s has claimed that Citibank in addition to increasing his interest payable from 0% to 15.74%, failed to give clear notice of such a drastic increase in the post-deployment interest rate. The suit also accuses Citibank of withholding the extension of military benefits to servicemembers despite providing sufficient proof of eligibility.

Starbucks sued for misrepresenting contents of coffee powder

Starbucks is in the midst of a potential class action suit accusing it of issuing misleading advertisements about the contents of its coffee. The coffee under the lens is the French Roast Ground 100% Arabica Coffee. Despite the name, the suit claims that it includes potassium as an additive and therefore, misleadingly claims itself to be 100% coffee.

It should be noted that potassium is a common acidity regulator agent used for ensuring the coffee beans retain their flavor and aroma.

The plaintiffs argue that a product claiming to be 100% coffee should not contain potassium. Furthermore, the suit also alleges that the said coffee powder consists of higher-than-expected potassium levels which can also cause further health issues in coffee drinkers. As such, the suit has accused Starbucks’ of being fraudulent and violative of consumer laws and in breach of implied and express warranties.

3M lawsuit update: 3M asked to defend its new stance claiming that its subsidiary is solely responsible for damages

Background:

3M and its subsidiary Aearo Technologies LLC are in the midst of a 2019 multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) involving thousands of military veterans alleging 3M’s Combat Arms earplugs (CAEv2) were defective and responsible for causing members hearing loss and tinnitus.

In July 2022, 3M’s subsidiary Aearo filed for bankruptcy (which would automatically stay the suits against it) arguing that the bankruptcy proceedings would be better positioned to deal with the multiplicity of claims in the MDL.

Generally, companies opting for bankruptcy obtain an immediate reprieve from lawsuits. Aearo had argued in favor of extending said reprieve towards 3M as well. However, Judge Graham of the Florida Federal Court, held that 3M will not get bankruptcy protection because its subsidiary declared bankruptcy. Thereafter, the MDL judge, M. Casey Rodgers ordered 3M to participate in the new settlement mediation.

Therefore, to summarize, the lawsuit is being played out in 2 courts (concerning different questions of law) i.e., the court hearing the MDL (MDL Court, Judge Rodgers) and the bankruptcy court (Florida Court, Judge Graham).

Recent update

In an interesting turn of events, 3M has now (after around 3 years of litigation) claimed that its subsidiary Aearo is to be blamed solely for the damage caused by the Combat Arms Earplugs. As a response to this, the plaintiffs have pointed out that 3M had vehemently argued that it owns and controls Aearo while opposing a motion to treat 3M and Aearo as different entities (for deciding a per defendant damages cap).

Furthermore, this stance is in stark opposition to 3M’s trial-long conduct of taking the lead in responding to court documents filed against all defendants.

The Florida Judge after critiquing this new defense has now asked 3M to justify it. On its part, 3M insisted that its strategy is unchanged and that it is committed to working towards resolving the matter.

Class Action Case Update – October 24, 2022

Amplify settlement in 2021 Huntington oil spill within sight – coast clear for suit against responsible containerships

Amplify Energy Corporation has agreed to pay $50 million to settle the class action suit instituted against them. The suit emanated from the leak of an Amplify-owned pipeline located in federal waters near Huntington Beach. The said oil leak was spread across 23 miles of California’s coastline (from Huntington beach up to Dana Point) and aside from affecting marine life and wildlife also led to the closure of several fishing blocks.

The $50 million settlement (yet to be approved by the court) will be divided as follows: $34 million to plaintiffs from the fish industry, $9 million to property owners, and $7 million to the class representing the tourism industry. Additionally, as a part of the settlement, Amplify is also required to take steps to keep the spill from recurring and undertake additional procedures (amounting to $250,000) before resuming operations.

The leak was supposedly caused by MSC Danit and M/V Beijing, two containerships, whose decision to remain at anchor during a storm led their anchors to drag over and weaken/crack Amplify’s pipeline which was carrying crude oil. The pipeline began leaking on 1 October 2021, despite which the oil companies continued using it to pump oil till the next morning.

With the settlement (almost) in place, the coast is clear for Amplify and others to pursue their claims against the Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. and COSCO Container Lines Co Ltd (i.e., operators of the containerships) responsible for causing the leak.

Equifax accused of sharing users’ viewing history with Facebook

A suit filed in the Illinois Federal Court accuses Equifax Inc., a well-known credit reporting agency, of disclosing their customers’ identities and viewing history to Facebook, without their consent. Equifax among other things offers educational financial advice in a video format on its site. The suit alleges that Equifax has been sharing details of their users’ video viewership along with their identities to Facebook.

The sharing is supposed to be facilitated through a Facebook tracking pixel, which upon installation on any page or application, tracks users and sends information to Facebook. The list of information shared includes viewing history, users’ Facebook ID (which identifies the underlying Facebook profile), etc.

The class action suit filed against Equifax, alleges that Equifax’s conduct falls foul of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Act requires ‘video tape service providers to obtain express consent (in a written form) from users, before disclosing their personally identifiable information (which includes viewing history).

Walmart faces illegal data collection lawsuit in Illinois

In a recent suit filed by an Illinois resident, Walmart has been accused of illegally collecting its customers’ biometric data. The plaintiff intends to establish a plaintiff class and is seeking damages between $ 1000 to 5000 (per violation) for the proposed class members.

Notably, Illinois has in place a fairly strict data protection regime which includes the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). As per BIPA, several conditions are to be met before a person’s biometric data is collected. This includes intimating the person of such data collection (in writing), the purpose and period for such collection, obtaining a written release for said collection, etc.

While video surveillance is an integral part of security systems employed by malls and stores, the suit alleges that Walmart has put in place multiple advanced video surveillance mechanisms, including the Clearview AI software which matches facial scans from Walmart surveillance with Clearview’s facial recognition database collated from several open-access social media platforms (e.g., Instagram).

It may be remembered that Clearview Inc. recently settled a May 2020 lawsuit (involving violations of BIPA) and as a part of the settlement it was barred from selling its database (enabling facial recognition) to US-based businesses and private entities. If the allegations in the suit against Walmart are correct, Clearview could potentially be in contravention of its settlement terms.

On its part, Walmart stated that it is not a Clearview client and that while it did evaluate a demo version from Clearview, it decided to not proceed with the same.

Class Action Case Update – October 13, 2022

Illegal tracking lawsuit: Google to pay $85 million to the state of Arizona

In 2020, the state of Arizona filed a suit against Google for violating the Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act. The Arizona Consumer Fraud Act is a set of laws aimed at protecting consumers from transactions pertaining to sale or advertisement of merchandise.

Google was accused of collecting location data even when users had expressly refused consent for such tracking (by disabling their “Location History”). User preferences were however bypassed by Google (through other settings for e.g., “Web and App Activity”) to collect information which was then used to carry out targeted advertising. Google’s motion seeking dismissal of the case on the grounds that there was not any linkage to sale or advertisement, was denied by the court.

Google has agreed to settle this dispute with the State of Arizona, for a whopping sum of USD 85 million. This settlement is all set to go down as the largest paid by Google on a per capita basis in a consumer fraud lawsuit.

At the wrong end of a historic settlement, Google’s troubles are far from over, as it continues to face similar lawsuits in Indiana, Texas and Washington, D.C.

$9.5 million settlement in LifeBridge Health law suit

LifeBridge Health is a Baltimore-based health-related service provider comprising of several hospitals and affiliated entities. In May 2018, LifeBridge discovered that they had suffered a 18-month long data breach which compromised patient details like names, addresses, diagnoses, treatment information, insurance information, (even social security numbers in certain cases) etc. A malware on the server of Potomac Physicians (associated with LifeBridge) was responsible for said breach.

Thereafter, LifeBridge suffered another data breach in 2019 wherein patient data from Sinai Hospital was compromised.

The patients whose data was compromised, alleged that the breach affected their access to email accounts, caused multiple transactions to be declined, fraudulent transactions (ranging from credit card fraud to fraudulent applications for Covid business loans and unemployment submissions). The data breach has supposedly impacted around 530,000 patients.

As a part of the settlement (amounting to a total of $9.5million) while LifeBridge has not admitted any wrongdoing, it has to shell out $800,000 as payment to class members (upto $5000 for proven monetary losses and $250 for unreimbursed losses). Additionally, LifeBridge also has to invest $7.9 million into various cyber security upgrades.

3M lawsuit update: 3M approaches eleventh circuit court to reverse bankruptcy court order

Background:

3M and its subsidiary Aearo Technologies LLC are in the midst of a 2019 multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) involving thousands of military veterans alleging 3M’s Combat Arms earplugs (CAEv2) were defective and responsible for causing members hearing loss and tinnitus.

In July 2022, 3M’s subsidiary Aearo filed for bankruptcy (which would automatically stay the suits against it) arguing that the bankruptcy proceedings would be better positioned to deal with the multiplicity of claims in the MDL.

Generally, companies opting for bankruptcy obtain an immediate reprieve from lawsuits. Aearo had argued in favor of extending said reprieve towards 3M as well. However, Judge Graham of the Florida Federal Court, held that 3M will not get bankruptcy protection because its subsidiary declared bankruptcy. Thereafter, the MDL judge, M. Casey Rodgers ordered 3M to participate in the new settlement mediation.

Therefore, to summarize, the lawsuit is being played out in 2 courts (concerning different questions of law) i.e., the court hearing the MDL (MDL Court, Judge Rodgers) and the bankruptcy court (Florida Court, Judge Graham).

Recent update

A few days back, 3M approached the Eleventh Circuit Court to reverse the bankruptcy court’s ruling which bars it from using Aaero’s bankcrupcy proceedings to re-adjudicate decisions of the MDL court. 3M’s main issue is with the MDL court’s injunction which prevents 3M from contesting its orders, in the bankruptcy court. Aside of restricting the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction, 3M is asserting that the MDL injunction order also affects 3M’s due process rights in the bankruptcy court.

Read through the full list of our lawsuit updates.

Class Action Case Update – September 28, 2022

Crypto companies facing regulatory wrath combined with investor wrath

The massive fall of cryptocurrency prices earlier this year, was accompanied by a steady rise in crypto litigation whereby several buyers have sued crypto exchanges (e.g., Coinbase and Binance), coin issuers, crypto miners, etc.

Around 58 securities class action suits have been filed against multiple crypto companies for issues ranging from security law violations, defrauding investors, etc.

Crypto crash aside, the market is also reeling from additional scrutiny from the Securities Exchange Commission and the Biden administration who sought further tightening of regulatory oversight on unlawful practices in the crypto market.

On the litigation front, of significant note is the suit filed by investors against Bitfinex and its affiliate Tether (of Tether stablecoin fame) for defrauding their investors and causing losses amounting to billions. The plaintiffs/investors have successfully defended themselves against all the preliminary challenges thrown at them.

Another interesting suit is a proposed class action suit being adjudicated in the New York federal court wherein Coinbase has been accused of trading 79 token coins which were in actuality unregistered securities (requiring several legal compliances).

This litigation spree has the potential to bring much-required clarity on many fundamental legal issues surrounding cryptocurrency (especially since federal law is absent), given that crypto companies have repeatedly sought to bypass securities law compliance, by claiming that cryptocurrencies are not securities.

Meta in the soup again for tracking users without their consent

Two Meta users have filed a suit in the San Francisco Federal Court against Meta Platforms Inc. (previously Facebook) for employing mechanisms to circumvent Apple Inc.’s privacy safeguards and violate state and federal laws.

Apple’s App Tracking Transparency framework allows Apple users to have the option of disallowing certain tracking functionalities which are used by applications. However, Meta allegedly bypassed the said framework by making external websites open within its apps (Instagram, Facebook, etc.) instead of using the built-in browser (e.g., Safari). Further, Meta has been accused of injecting tracking code into websites, which allows it to monitor a wide range of user activities without their consent.

Aside from going against the express wishes of the users who opted out of the App Tracking Transparency Framework, Meta has also been accused of violating the Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

Interestingly, the findings of a data privacy researcher, Mr. Felix Krause, formed the basis of the said suit. His report titled ‘iOS Privacy: Instagram and Facebook can Track Anything you do on any Website in their In-App Browser’, noted that Meta redirected users to use their in-app browsers (instead of external browsers like Safari) when they clicked on any links on Facebook or Instagram apps.

By way of response, Meta denied any illegal user-data collection while acknowledging that the Facebook app does monitor browser activity.

3M denied bankruptcy protection in defective earplug suit

3M and its subsidiary Aearo Technologies LLC are in the midst of a 2019 multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) involving thousands of military veterans alleging 3M’s Combat Arms earplugs (CAEv2) were defective and responsible for causing members hearing loss and tinnitus.

In July 2022, 3M’s subsidiary Aearo filed for bankruptcy (which would automatically stay the suits against it) arguing that the bankruptcy proceedings would be better positioned to deal with the multiplicity of claims in the MDL.

Generally, companies opting for bankruptcy obtain an immediate reprieve from lawsuits. Aearo had argued in favor of extending said reprieve towards 3M as well. However, Judge Graham of the Florida Federal Court, held that 3M will not get bankruptcy protection because its subsidiary declared bankruptcy. Thereafter, the MDL judge, M. Casey Rodgers ordered 3M to participate in the new settlement mediation.

Furthermore, 3M also faces a new challenge in the form of the upcoming earplug trial by plaintiff David George who used the CAEv2 earplugs and suffered hearing issues after his 6-year military stint.

Top Universities’ motion to dismiss financial aid case is denied

A total of 17 private schools (including Yale, Brown and Duke) are alleged to have violated the conditions which exempted them from complying with certain anti-trust provisions relating to financial aid.

The suit, which has been instituted by certain former students of these Universities, revolves around the anti-trust exemption found in Section 568 of the Improving America’s School Act of 1994. The said exemption allows colleges practicing a need-blind admission process (i.e., who do not consider students’ financial standing during admission) to collaborate with each other, in respect of financial aid offerings.

The plaintiffs however allege that the universities’ admission processes were not need-blind and as such, they were ineligible for the S.568 exemption. In their defense, the Universities alleged that apart from the suit being time-barred, accusations made thereunder are too general, vague and fairly old.

The Judge denied the motion of the Universities seeking a dismissal of the suit and stated that the plaintiffs reasonably alleged that the Universities looked at student finances during the admission process.

Rutgers approaches court seeking dismissal of a proposed class action accusing it of inflating employment figures

Rutgers University has approached the New Jersey Federal court to seek the dismissal of a suit accusing it of misrepresenting employment statistics to influence college rankings. Lorenzo Budet, a student of the University’s specialty master’s program, filed a suit in April 2022, alleging that it had boosted its ranking by misrepresenting its employment figures.

On the other hand, the University claims that Mr. Budet has no standing in the case matter as he is a part-time student in a specialty master’s program for supply chain management. Whereas, in his suit, he has alleged misrepresentation of data relating to the University’s full-time Masters of Business Administration program.

Mr. Budet alleged that Rutgers inflated the number of students finding employment by placing them in token positions with the University itself. This conduct supposedly misled prospective students about their employment prospects. He further accused the University of violating the Consumer Fraud Act, a claim which was refuted by the University by claiming an exemption on account of it being a ‘learned professional’.

Mr. Budet is seeking to represent a proposed class action suit consisting of a class of students enrolled in Rutgers’ MBA and other master’s programs, from January 2018 onwards.

Peloton unsuccessful in evading false advertising claim

Peloton Interactive is well known for its stationary bikes and treadmills equipped with screens that users can use to play music, and live and on-demand classes. In February 2020, Peloton settled a suit with multiple music artists who accused it of using their music without appropriate licenses.

Similarly, certain users who were affected by the resultant reduction in Peloton’s video library content had approached the court in December 2019, alleging Peloton’s conduct in withholding information about the diminishing video library, was fraudulent. They accused Peloton of falsely advertising its ‘ever-growing’ fitness library collection after a significant portion of the videos had to be taken down in response to copyright violations.

After multiple dismissals faced by the users on different legal counts, two plaintiffs, Eric Passman and Ishmael Alvarado refiled the complaint and filed claims under consumer protection laws in their individual capacity as well as on behalf of a class (including Peloton subscribers from April 9, 2018 up to March 25, 2019).

In its defense, Peloton sought the dismissal of the plaint by arguing that the plaintiffs not only needed to prove that they saw the advertisement but also that they relied on the alleged misrepresentation, for the suit to proceed.

However, US District Judge Liman, foiled Peloton’s attempt to have the fourth version of the complaint dismissed.

Meta accused of knowingly employing exploitative and damaging business tactics so as to lure young users

A total of 8 suits have been filed against Meta Platforms Inc. (previously Facebook) all over US, accusing Meta of actively employing exploitative tactics to lure youngsters into using its platforms and products (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, etc.). They allege that Meta knowingly designed its algorithms and products to be addictive and manipulative so as to increase user engagement despite knowing the potential harm caused by such tactics to its young users.

Critically, the suits blame excessive exposure to Meta’s products and platforms for several disorders including– mental, sleep and eating disorders alongside cases of suicide (both attempted and actual), among the young users.

These suits are in the aftermath of an ex-Facebook employee’s damning testimony in Congress alleging that Facebook was aware of the debilitating effects of its business practices on young users.

They allege that Meta not only misrepresented the safety and utility of its platforms but also failed to adequately warn users of its dangers. Meta has not officially responded to these allegations as of now but has re-iterated that they have put in place systems enabling parents to monitor and regulate their children’s activities on Meta’s platforms.

3M defective combat earplugs trial – Veterans seek to block 3M’s attempt to use subsidiary’s bankruptcy to block ongoing proceedings in the MDL

3M and its subsidiary Aearo are in the midst of a 2019 multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) involving thousands of military veterans alleging 3M’s Combat Arms earplugs (CAEv2) were defective and responsible for causing members hearing loss and tinnitus. 3M’s position is that the earplugs were made as per army specifications.

In July 2022, Aearo filed for bankruptcy (which automatically stays the suits against it) arguing that the bankruptcy proceedings would be better positioned to deal with the multiplicity of claims in the MDL. On the other hand, the veterans approached the court seeking to prevent any effort made by 3M to use Aearo’s bankruptcy proceedings to block claims in the ongoing MDL. 3M has countered this by stating that the bankruptcy court should decide the scope of the automatic stay and urged that given the relation between 3M and Aearo, a stay on all proceedings in the MDL would be required.

The Florida Federal court is expected to adjudicate upon the applicability of the automatic stay to 3M, on August 18, 2022.

Equifax in legal trouble after several users allege generation of incorrect credit scores

A proposed class action suit filed in Atlanta Federal Court, has alleged that Equifax knowingly allowed a coding glitch in its systems which generated inaccurate credit scores for several users. The glitch supposedly emanated from a coding issue within a program which was to be replaced.

The misleading credit scores are alleged to have adversely impacted the credit terms of creditors during a 3-week period in early 2022. Equifax has also been accused of violating provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Nydia Jenkins, who had to shell out extra interest for an auto loan because of the said glitch, is seeking to represent the class action suit.

Equifax while acknowledging that there was a coding issue has stated that only a minor portion of users were affected by it and there was no change in majority of the scores. Furthermore, Equifax stated that a mere change in score did not mean that the user’s credit decisions were adversely impacted.