Week Adjourned: 10.20.17 – Subaru, Live Nation, Brickman Group

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Subaru Defect? Is your Subaru WRX and WRX STi suffering from defects? Read on. A defective automotive class action lawsuit has been filed against Subaru of America Inc. and Subaru Corporation alleging they failed to disclose a defect involving connecting rod bearings, defective connecting rod side clearances, and/or insufficient channels of engine lubrication, which results from an alleged defective rotating assembly. According to the complaint, the affected vehicles include model year 2013 and 2014 Subaru WRX and WRX STi vehicles.

The Subaru lawsuit, filed by Plaintiff Vincente Salcedo of California, claims Subaru used a rotating assembly that has a defect that existed at the time the vehicles were manufactured but typically manifested after the expiration of the limited warranty period.

Specifically, the defect manifests with the connecting rod bearings failing and metal debris allegedly begins to circulate throughout the engine via contaminated engine oil. This results in spun connecting rod bearings and catastrophic engine failure, potentially causing life-threatening stalling events while the vehicle is in operation, the complaint asserts.

“Despite notice and knowledge of the defect from the numerous complaints it has received, information from dealers, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (‘NHTSA’) complaints, and its own internal records, including pre-sale durability testing and quality policies, Subaru has not recalled the Class Vehicles to repair the defect, offered its customers suitable repairs or replacements free of charge, or offered to reimburse its customers who have incurred out-of-pocket expenses to repair the defect,” the complaint states.

Salcedo states in the lawsuit that he purchased a 2013 Subaru Impreza WRX from a private party in August 2015. Nearly two years later, at approximately 68,759 miles, the vehicle’s engine allegedly made a “knocking” sound while he was driving on the highway and catastrophically failed.

Salcedo states that he had his vehicle towed to an authorized Subaru dealer for diagnosis and repair related to the engine failure and was allegedly quoted in excess of $5,700 to complete the necessary repairs. The complaint claims the dealer contacted Subaru of America, which offered to cover $2,000 of the repairs as a goodwill gesture. Salcedo subsequently paid $3,711.15 himself for parts and labor.

Salcedo claims he would not have purchased the Subaru Impreza vehicle, or would have paid far less for it, had Subaru publicly disclosed the engine defect prior to the time he purchased the vehicle.

The Subaru class action lawsuit alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and breach of written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The lawsuit is Vincente Salcedo v. Subaru of America Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-08173-JHR-AMD, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Top Settlements

Live Nation has agreed to pony up $1.1 million to settle allegations it illegally denied breaks to 1,500 parking and traffic employees in California. If approved, this will end the employment class action it’s currently facing.

The entertainment company was sued in September, 2015, by named plaintiff Lee Webster, a former traffic controller at Live Nation’s Shoreline Amphitheater in Mountain View, CA. Webster alleged that she and other parking lot employees were required to work without meal and rest breaks as a matter of routine.

According to the terms of the settlement, the funds will pay litigation costs and fees, with the remaining funds distributed to class members pro rata based on the number of hours each class member worked performing parking or traffic control duties during the class period. The estimated net recovery for each class member will likely average $421.55 Any funds from checks that remain uncashed after 180 days will be split between two nonprofits: the Katherine & George Alexander Community Law Center and Lambda Legal, according to the settlement.

Further, the settlement allows for Webster to seek an additional award of $20,000 as class representative.

As per the terms of the Live Nation settlement, the class is defined as consisting of all current and former Live Nation nonexempt employees who performed parking or traffic control duties for the company in California from September 28, 2011, to the present.

The case is Lee Webster v. Live Nation Worldwide Inc. et al., case number 2015-1-CV-286202, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara.

Brickman Group settles... Another group of happy plaintiffs this week. Final approval of a $4.4 million settlement has been granted ending an employment class action lawsuit involving hundreds of employees of The Brickman Group Ltd. LLC (now Brightview Landscapes LLC).

The plaintiffs claims filed in their October 2013 lawsuit that Brickman Group underpaid overtime to its salaried Supervisors by using a half-time “fluctuating workweek” overtime pay plan that allegedly did not comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state laws.

The Brickman Group settlement classes involve approximately 476 original opt-in Plaintiffs and Pennsylvania class members in Group 1, and approximately 345 individuals in Group 2 who did not originally join the case but accepted their settlement offers to join and participate in the settlement.

The case is Acevedo, et al. v. Brightview Landscapes, LLC (f/k/a/ The Brickman Group Ltd. LLC), No. 3:13-cv-02529-MEM (M.D. Pa.)

So folks – on that happy note – this week’s a wrap –see you at the bar!!


Week Adjourned: 6.9.17 – Subaru, Five Guys, Honest Company

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Can Subaru see their way to fixing this? They got hit with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week, over allegations they knowingly sold vehicles with defective windshields that are prone to spontaneous shattering. Yes, that would certainly help your driving. Not.

Filed by Lucia Luong, who purchased a new 2015 Subaru Outback, the complaint asserts that the vehicle’s windshield spontaneously cracked in March. Subsequently, Subaru has denied valid warranty claims in an effort to minimize its own costs, Luong alleges.

“Subaru knew of and concealed the windshield defect that is contained in every class vehicle, along with the attendant dangerous safety problems and associated repair costs, from plaintiff and the other class members both at the time of sale and repair and thereafter,” the lawsuit states.

Luong alleges that hers is not an isolated incident, but rather “hundreds, if not thousands,” of drivers who bought or leased 2015-2016 Subaru Outback or Legacy vehicles in the US have also experienced a defective windshield. This is clearly evident by the number of customer complaints filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the lawsuit asserts.

The complaint goes on to state that although Subaru was aware of the defect, the company did not notify the drivers or grant them any relief, and the value of the vehicles has consequently diminished.

“Defendant has deprived class members of the benefit of their bargain, exposed them all to a dangerous safety defect, and caused them to expend money at its dealerships or other third-party repair facilities and/or take other remedial measures related to the windshield defect contained in the class vehicles,” the lawsuit states.

The complaint notes that while Subaru claims it extended its new car warranty by two years for front windshield failure, the extension only applied to certain members of the proposed class. Further, when Subaru dealers have repaired the windshields, they often replaced them with other faulty units, according to the complaint. Oh yea, that makes sense.

According to the Subaru lawsuit, Subaru is in violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, and is in breach of implied and express warranties, and fraudulent omission.

Luong is seeking replacement windshields—you think?—an extended windshield warranty; the reimbursement of costs related to the faulty windshields; a halt to sales of the faulty vehicles without first notifying consumers of the defect; compensatory, exemplary and statutory damages; disgorgement of profits from the sale of the defective vehicles; and fees and costs.

Five Guys got served this week. Yup—the popular burger chain is facing a potential class action lawsuit brought by a former employee who claims the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and California labor law by conducting background checks on employees without properly notifying them and committing a number of wage and hour violations. Further, the lawsuit contends that Five Guys failed to provide employees with legally required rest and meal breaks.

Filed by plaintiff Jeremy R. Lusk, the complaint claims that Lusk was periodically required to perform off-the-clock tasks and denied meal and rest breaks, along with other employment law infractions.

“Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendants have a policy or practice of failing to comply with the labor code and the business and professions code as alleged herein,” the Five Guys lawsuit states.

Additionally, the complaint asserts that the defendant regularly secured credit and background reports on employees, conducted background checks on potential, current and former employees and used this information to make hiring decisions without providing clear disclosures.

This practice violates the FCRA, as well as California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act and Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, the complaint states.

Lusk seeks to represent several classes and subclasses, including an FCRA class of all current, former and prospective employees in the United States over the last five years and ICRAA and CCRAA classes of California workers and applicants within the last five and seven years, respectively.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the FCRA, ICRAA, CCRAA, California’s Unfair Competition Law and the state labor code. The complaint seeks unpaid wages, actual and liquidated damages, restitution, declaratory relief, pre-judgment interest, statutory and civil penalties, as well as fees and costs.

The case is Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises LLC et al., case number 1:17-cv-00762, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. 

Top Settlements

It’s nearly over, Honest! That is for Jessica Alba’s home products company, Honest, which has  agreed to pay $1.55 million to settle consumer fraud allegations brought in a lawsuit filed in 2016. Think back.

The Honest class action lawsuit claimed that the company misled consumers with claims that its products such as its laundry and dish soaps, as well as its surface cleaner were free of harsh chemicals, when in fact they contained the chemical sodium lauryl sulfate, or SLS, a known skin irritant. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Honest will change its product formula in addition to the financial compensation to consumers.

“This non-monetary relief is significant because it directly addresses and remedies the central allegation in plaintiffs’ action for future purchasers, that Honest made misleading representations in connection with sale of the SCS-containing products based on its promise that they were SLS-free,” the settlement motion states.

According to independent lab tests conducted by lawyers representing lead plaintiff Staci Seed, Honest Laundry Detergent, Honest Dish Soap and Honest Multi-Surface Cleaner products contain significant percentages of SLS. In her complaint, Seed contended SLS can cause scalp, gum and skin irritation at concentrations of just 1 percent, while testing on the Honest products showed concentrations of as much as 14 percent.

Under the terms of the proposed deal, the Honest settlement class would include all persons who purchased Honest laundry detergent, dish soap and multi-surface cleaner from January 17, 2012, through to and including the date of preliminary approval.

Class members without a proof of purchase could claims up to $50. Class members with proof of purchase can request more per claim. Claims will be paid in cash or as a credit for products at Honest.com worth 1.5 times the cash payout.

The 10 named plaintiffs may receive settlement awards of up to $1,000 per plaintiff. The settlement requires court approval.

The case is In Re: The Honest Company Inc. Sodium Lauryl Sulfate SLS Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation, case number 2:16-ml-027919-AB-RAO in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.


Ok – That’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 5.13.16 – Colgate, Subaru, Air New Zealand

sparklingMintToothpasteTop Class Action Lawsuits

Show us your Pearly Whites, Darling. Oh, is your tube of Colgate Optic White Toothpaste just not cutting it? Teeth aren’t gleaming white as advertised? Well, you’re not alone. This week, Lori Canale, filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit against the company alleging—you guessed it—consumer fraud.

Specifically, Canale claims in the Colgate toothpaste lawsuit, for herself and for all others similarly situated, that Colgate-Palmolive misrepresents that its Colgate Optic White Toothpaste “Goes beyond surface stain removal to deeply whiten” teeth and that its Colgate optic white platinum toothpaste “Deeply whitens more than three shades.” Which three shades, precisely?

According to the complaint, the toothpastes do not actually go beyond surface stain removal and do not deeply whiten teeth because their whitening ingredient, which is 1 percent hydrogen peroxide, is not a large enough amount of hydrogen peroxide. Further, the product is not in contact with teeth for a long enough time to do what the company claims it does.

The case is US District Court for the Southern District of New York Case number 7:16-CV-03308-CS.

Lights out for Subaru? Well, likely not. But they are facing a defective automotive class action lawsuit filed in California this week, alleging certain of its vehicles contain a design defect making those vehicles unsafe for drivers and passengers.

Filed by Kathleen O’Neill of Pismo Beach, California, individually and for all others similarly situated, against Subaru of America Inc., the Subaru lawsuit asserts that the car maker’s 2010 and 2011 Subaru Outback vehicles contain a design and/or manufacturing defect that causes the exterior lighting bulbs to fail prematurely and frequently.

Further, this alleged defect, in addition to the associated safety issues, results in vehicle owners paying more to replace the exterior bulbs. Yes, that could get seriously annoying in addition to expensive.

The complaint alleges breach of implied warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, and violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and its Unfair Competition Law.

The case is US District Court for the Central District of California Western Division Case number 2:16-CV-02774-R-KS. 

Top Settlements 

Anti-trust at 30,000 Feet… Air New Zealand down under has agreed to come up with $35 million as settlement of their share of a class action lawsuit brought in 2006 by several freight forwarders who allege the airline fixed prices in their cargo operations. FYI—Air New Zealand is just one defendant in the antitrust class action lawsuit.

Although the airline has not admitted liability, it has agreed to settle to mitigate further legal action and related court costs.

The class action named a list of global airlines, alleging that they conspired on cargo fuel and security surcharges between 2000 and 2006. The US class action is just one of several similar cases brought in other countries. The US Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation, from which Air New Zealand was released in 2011.

The settlement remains subject to court approval. The $35 million represents 2.8% of the $1.2 billion so far paid in settlements by 28 airlines accused of price-fixing. Hey—money in money out—right? 

Ok –That’s a wrap folks…Have a good one. See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 10.9.15 – Subaru, Scottrade, LinkedIn

SubaruTop Class Action Lawsuits

Subaru Flipping You One? Just when you though it might be safe to get back into your car…guess what? Not if you own a 2006 Subaru B9 Tribeca, apparently. A defective automobile class action lawsuit has been filed against Subaru of America Inc, alleging certain of its vehicles have a design defect that causes the hood to fly open when the affected vehicles are traveling at high speed. This can result in cracked windshields and danger to the drivers, in addition to diminishing the value of the vehicles.

Filed by Sharion Hadley, the Subaru complaint asserts that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has 17 complaints about the hood of the 2006 Subaru B9 Tribeca unlocking and smashing the windshield while being driven. However, Hadley claims Subaru won’t do anything to fix the alleged defect.

“Despite longstanding knowledge of the defect through public complaints and internal testing, Subaru has failed to take responsibility for the problem, refusing to issue a recall and denying consumer requests to pay for necessary repairs occasioned by the defect,” the complaint states.

In the complaint, Hadley states that the hood of her vehicle flew open in May while she was driving at approximately 65 miles per hour, cracking her windshield and dislodging the rear view mirror. She goes on to state that she was unable to see the road because of the broken hood. She did manage to navigate the car to the side of the road, where she was helped by passing drivers.

According to the lawsuit, Hadley contacted Subaru about the accident, but the automaker refused to take responsibility for the alleged defect, wouldn’t compensate her for the cost of repairs and refused to even look at the vehicle.

The lawsuit contends that this incident is not isolated. While numerous consumers have complained online about the same alleged defect, the NHTSA has 17 complaints about the 2006 B9 Tribeca describing a similar experience to that which Hadley experienced.

“It is well known that car manufacturers, in general, and Subaru in particular, closely monitor NHTSA complaints, so there can be no doubt that Subaru has long known of this issue from the NHTSA website,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit accuses Subaru of actively concealing the alleged defect, and of failing to disclose that the alleged defect would diminish the value of the vehicle.

The lawsuit seeks certification of a national and Pennsylvania class of drivers who bought or leased the 2006 Subaru B9 Tribeca. She said at least 18,000 of the class vehicles were sold by Subaru.

The complaint asserts claims for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty and common law fraud, among others.

The case is Hadley v. Subaru of America Inc., case number 1:15-cv-07210, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

It Really is Groundhog Day! Another data breach class action lawsuit has been filed this week—who’s counting anymore? This one, against the discount brokerage house Scottrade Inc, alleging the company failed to take adequate action to protect its customer’s data. Scottrade announced last week that between late 2013 and early 2014 approximately 4.6 million users had their personal information, possibly including their Social Security numbers, targeted in a data breach.

Filed by plaintiff Stephen Hine, the lawsuit states that Scottrade was negligent in failing to exercise reasonable security precautions and failing to comply with industry standards for storing confidential and private personal information. Further, the lawsuit alleges Scottrade’s email notification to customers affected by the breach was “woefully inadequate and vague,” given that their information might be sold on the black market or used in stock scams and other financial frauds.

Specifically, the lawsuit states, “Scottrade’s actions and/or omissions occurred despite prior warnings, including prior incursions of their network by third parties, who conducted fraudulent stock trades using Scottrade’s customer’s accounts, and even fines from government agencies concerning its system’s security procedures and oversight.” Seriously, how can anyone still be caught with their digital trouser down anymore?

The plaintiff contends that had Scottrade heeded warnings and taken necessary precautions, the data breach could have been prevented or, at a minimum, predicted it much sooner and reduced the harm to its customers.

In its announcement, Scottrade stated that those responsible for the attack appeared to have targeted names and mailing addresses, but it couldn’t rule out the possibility that email addresses and other “sensitive data” had been stolen.

The lawsuit goes on to allege that many of the customers affected won’t receive email notifications from Scottrade as they have changed email addresses or used a different email address. Furthermore, the emails sent are materially misleading and don’t fully disclose the scope of the threat to Scottrade’s customers, the lawsuit states.

“The database accessed, however, contains, among other things, Social Security numbers, email addresses and other ‘sensitive data’ (which is not defined in the email),” the complaint states. “It is highly unlikely that the hackers, having access to the above information, would only take the affected customer’s name and email address.”

According to the complaint, as a financial institution and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission registered broker dealer, Scottrade had a “special duty” to exercise reasonable care to protect and secure the personal and financial information of its customers.

“Scottrade should have known to take precaution to secure its customers’ data, given its special duty, especially in light of the recent data breaches affecting numerous retailers and financial institutions, as well as from prior direct breaches of its secured networks,” the complaint states. You think ?

The case is Hine v. Scottrade Inc., case number 3:15-cv-02213, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Top Settlements

LinkedIn will pay to play… The social media platform has agreed  to pony up $13 million in a settlement, that could end a Telephone Consumer protection Act (TCPA) class action lawsuit they’re facing over spamming its members.

Specifically, the LinkedIn lawsuit targeted LinkedIn’s ‘Add Connections’, a service that allowed members to import contacts from their email accounts. LinkedIn then sent those contacts an email, according to court documents.

While the court found in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that members did not consent to LinkedIn sending reminder emails to recipients of pending invitations, the company denies any wrongdoing.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, people who signed up for LinkedIn between September 17, 2011, and October 31, 2014, can submit a claim, this includes people who are no longer members.

The payment amount for members of approved claims will depend upon how many claims are submitted but could range from $10 to $1,500. To learn more about the settlement, visit: http://www.addconnectionssettlement.com. Check it out!!

Ok—that’s it for this week folks—see you at the bar! And Happy Columbus Day!

Week Adjourned: 7.18.14 – Subaru, Kroger, Ralph’s, Sony PlayStation

Top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week…top stories include Subaru, Kroger, Ralph’s and Sony PlayStation.

Subaru Forester 2014Top Class Action Lawsuits 

Suing Subaru… that’s right folks…if you own or lease certain Forester, Legacy, Outback, Impreza and Crosstek models you can join a Subaru class action lawsuit alleging the company knowingly sold vehicles containing a defect that causes the cars to consume excessive amounts of oil. Also known as consumer fraud…

According to the complaint, filed by Lead plaintiffs Keith Yaeger and Michael Schuler, Subaru concealed from consumers the fact that certain Forester, Legacy, Outback, Impreza and Crosstek models have defective piston rings that prevent the engine from maintaining the proper level of oil and cause an abnormal amount of oil consumption, leading to engine failure and increasing the risk of accident.

“Not only did Subaru actively conceal the material fact that particular components within the class vehicles’ engines are defective, they did not reveal that the existence of the defect would diminish the intrinsic and resale value of the class vehicles and lead to the safety concerns described herein,” the lawsuit states.

Yaeger and Schuler bought new Subarus in 2012 and 2013 respectively, after which they independently noticed their new vehicles were consuming engine oil at an “unacceptable” rate. They were forced to add oil to their cars between Subaru’s recommended engine oil change intervals in order to avoid engine failure, the complaint states.

Further, the lawsuit states that both plaintiffs took their vehicles to their Subaru dealerships for repairs, but despite extensive servicing, the Subarus continued to burn through oil rapidly.

The plaintiffs allege Subaru has known of the oil consumption defect in model years 2011-14 Subaru Forester 2.5L, 2013 Legacy 2.5L, 2013 Outback 2.5L, 2012-13 Impreza 2.0L and 2013 XV Crosstek 2.0L vehicles, for some time, through numerous complaints received from dealers and consumers through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Regardless, the lawsuit states, Subaru actively concealed the defect from consumers. The company has also “routinely refused” to repair the vehicles without charge, according to the complaint.

Subaru updated its online information to acknowledge that certain vehicles run through oil quickly, but has not recalled the vehicles to repair the defect, offered its customers a suitable repair or replacement free of charge or offered to reimburse customers who have paid to repair the cars, the lawsuit states.

The putative class alleges violations of New Jersey and California consumer protection laws, breach of express warranty, common law fraud and more. The complaint asks the judge to certify a nationwide class of current or former owners or lessees of the affected vehicles, in addition to California, Florida and New Jersey state subclasses.

The lawsuit is Yaeger et al. v. Subaru of America Inc. et al., case number 1:14-cv-04490, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Got it? 

Overworked and underpaid… The grocery chain Kroger Co. and several of its units are facing a wages and overtime class action lawsuit filed by its delivery drivers in California. According to the putative class in the Kroger lawsuit, the workers weren’t fully paid for the many overtime hours they worked. Know this story?

Defendants Kroger and its units Ralphs Grocery Co., Foods Co. and two Food 4 Less entities allegedly failed to pay more than 1,000 drivers, dispatchers and delivery-support staff wages and overtime, while requiring them to work extra hours the complaint states.

Lead plaintiff, Jesse Blanco, alleges the stores “routinely required plaintiffs to work more than eight hours per day and, in some instances, more than twelve hours per day, and more than forty hours per workweek and, in some instances, seven days for extended, ongoing time periods.” Further, Blanco claims the companies cut wages by rounding time; “failed and refused to pay overtime”; and cheated the workers of meal and rest breaks required by California law.

FYI—the putative class includes all hourly delivery drivers, dispatchers and support staff employed by the stores in the four years leading up to the complaint. The plaintiffs are asking for a permanent injunction, compensatory damages and a variety of penalties. Yeah Baby! 

Top Settlements

Sony singing the “I will pay you” blues…to the tune of $15 million—at least according to a preliminary settlement reached in the pending data breach class action lawsuit. If approved, the settlement would see $15 million in games and online currency made available to class members as well as identity theft reimbursement. The lawsuit was brought by PlayStation Network (PSN) users affected by a massive 2011 Sony Corp. data breach.

Eligible class members include all persons residing in the US who had a PlayStation Network account or sub-account, a Qriocity account, or a Sony Online Entertainment account at any time prior to May 15, 2011, when it was revealed that hackers had broken into Sony’s network and obtained data on as many as 31 million account holders.

According to the Sony settlement agreement, Sony will provide affected consumers with “various benefits,” depending on the type of accounts they had and if they can prove that their data was misused, to resolve the dispute over the 2011 breach.

Following the discovery of the data breach, Sony offered its PSN users free identity theft protection, among other benefits. However, under the terms of the settlement agreement any class members who didn’t take that deal can choose two items from a mix of games, online display themes and a three-month subscription to Sony’s PlayStation Plus service, with a cap set at $6 million.

For those class members who did take Sony’s initial package, they will receive one of the items, with a cap set at $4 million. Class members who weren’t part of PSN but had accounts for a different Sony gaming service will get $4.50 of in-game currency, with a $4 million cap.

Sony agreed to reimburse up to $2,500 per class member for the identity theft claims, up to $1 million. It also allowed users to transfer any unused online currency into cash and give some class members a one-month subscription to its music streaming service.

Sony customers that fall within the class definition will be automatically bound to the settlement unless they opt out. Class members who wish to opt out from the settlement class have 21 days prior to the date of the final fairness hearing in May to notify the court of their intention to opt-out.

The case is In re: Sony Gaming Networks and Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, case number 3:11-md-02258, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Ok FolksWe’re Done HereHave a wonderful weekendwe’ll see you at the bar!