Latest news with #classAction
CNET
12 hours ago
- Business
- CNET
Did You Know About the GameStop-Facebook Settlement? Here's How to File a Claim
There's still time to claim part of GameStop privacy settlement. Did you buy something from video game retailer GameStop in the past five years? And did you have a Facebook account when you did so? I know that sounds like me and if it sounds like you, too, there's a settlement you need to know about. Early this 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 and Congress certainly seemed to take the 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.
Washington Post
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
New Hampshire lawsuit seeks to stop politicization of youth center abuse victims' fund
CONCORD, N.H. — Lawyers representing hundreds of men and woman who claim they were abused at New Hampshire's youth detention center filed a class action lawsuit Friday seeking to prevent the independent administrator of the state's settlement fund for victims from being replaced with a political appointee. Lawmakers created the settlement fund in 2022, pitching it as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation that would be run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget approved Thursday and signed into law by Gov. Kelly Ayotte on Friday.
Android Authority
14 hours ago
- Business
- Android Authority
AT&T finally settles its 2019 and 2024 breaches: Are you eligible for a payout?
Edgar Cervantes / Android Authority TL;DR AT&T has settled two data breaches (from 2019 and 2022) for a combined total of $177 million. Affected customers could receive payments up to $5,000, though smaller amounts are likely unless significant losses are proven. Notifications will arrive between August and October, with claims due by mid-November, but payments aren't expected until early 2026. Last year, AT&T confirmed it was the victim of a massive data breach involving customer data, call records, texts, and other sensitive information. Roughly 109 million customer accounts were impacted, unsurprisingly leading to a class-action lawsuit against the company. A little over a year later, AT&T has reached a $177 million settlement. This new settlement, approved by US District Judge Ada Brown, also covers an earlier breach from 2019, allocating $28 million for that incident, while the recent breach accounts for the remaining $149 million. Customers affected by AT&T's breaches could potentially receive up to $5,000, with larger payouts reserved for individuals who experienced clearly traceable losses. The earlier breach has slightly lower maximum payouts, around $2,500. Typically, however, payouts for customers minimally impacted by breaches tend to be relatively small, often insufficient even to cover a single monthly cellphone bill — making this outcome not particularly surprising. If you were impacted by the breaches, you should receive a notification sometime between August 4 and October 17, after which you'll have until November 18 to file your claim. Ultimately, the exact payout depends largely on your documented losses. As for when settlement payments will actually arrive, these cases typically take considerable time. Current estimates place payments in early 2026, with more specific details expected following the final settlement approval scheduled for December 3. Got a tip? Talk to us! Email our staff at Email our staff at news@ . You can stay anonymous or get credit for the info, it's your choice.
Forbes
19 hours ago
- Forbes
The Siri Payout Deadline Is Days Away—How To File A Claim Now
The deadline to apply for a payout as part of the Apple Siri eavesdropping lawsuit is just days ... More away, on July 2. The deadline to apply for a payout as part of the Apple Siri eavesdropping class action lawsuit is just days away, on July 2. If you fail to file your claim as part of the Siri class action lawsuit, you won't have the opportunity to get your share of up to $100 dollars per person as part of the payout agreed by Apple back in Jan. The class action alleges that Siri was listening to Apple users without their permission and serving them adverts as a result. Apple denies eavesdropping but says it has settled the case to avoid costly litigation. Here is how to work out if you are eligible and claim your share of the Siri settlement before the deadline. Who Is Eligible For The Siri Payout? First things first, the Siri eavesdropping class action lawsuit applies to U.S. Apple Siri users only. Specifically, you need to have owned a Siri-enabled device such as an iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch or MacBook and experienced the voice assistant being activated unintentionally during a private conversation. This needs to have taken place between Sept. 17 2024 and Dec. 31 2024. Some people who are eligible for the Siri payout will have been sent an email or postcard including a Claim Identification Code and Confirmation Code. You should use these when filling in the Claim Form. Others who think they should be allowed to make a claim can do so by visiting the Submit a Claim page and following the instructions there. How Much Can I Claim In The Siri Payout? Now for the all-important question. You can claim $20 dollars for each of the Apple devices you own, up to five devices. This adds up to a maximum of $100 from the Siri eavesdropping class action lawsuit payout. As is the case with lawsuits of this kind, the amount could be bigger or smaller pro rata depending on how many valid claims are received and how many devices included. The total Siri class action payout is $95 million. What Happens Next? You have a few days until the deadline, so make sure you get your claim for the Siri class action lawsuit payout in now if you haven't already. The final approval hearing will take place on Aug.1 2025, soon after which you could get your payment.
The Guardian
19 hours ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Barclays and Jes Staley face fresh lawsuit in US over Epstein link
Barclays and its former chief executive Jes Staley are facing a class action lawsuit in the US over claims they defrauded and misled investors over Staley's relationship with the child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. A judge in a Los Angeles court denied Staley's request to dismiss the case this week, paving the way for a fresh hearing that continues a long-running legal saga emanating from Staley's statements to regulators and investors over the nature of his ties to the disgraced financier. It is a bruising outcome for the American banker, who lost a legal challenge in the UK on Thursday against the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which banned him for life from holding senior management roles in the City in 2023 for misleading the watchdog over his history with Epstein. The US class action suit, led by pension funds in New York and Missouri, alleges that Barclays, its chair, Nigel Higgins, and Staley repeatedly misrepresented Staley's history with Epstein to media and investors, starting in July 2019 – weeks after Epstein was arrested on charges of trafficking underage girls for sex. Court documents allege that this was done in an attempt to protect Barclays' reputation and share price. The plaintiffs claim Barclays downplayed the relationship even after the FCA launched its investigation, which centred on claims made in a letter it received from Barclays in October 2019. That letter claimed that Staley 'did not have a close relationship' with Epstein, and that his last contact with the financier had been 'well before' he joined Barclays four years earlier in 2015. The FCA investigation, triggered by a cache of 1,200 emails from Staley's former employer JP Morgan, concluded that the pair were 'indeed close' and had a relationship that 'went beyond one that was professional in nature'. The latest US lawsuit claims that Barclays, Staley and Higgins misled them even after learning about the FCA investigation. They claim that this continued even after Barclays reviewed the JP Morgan email cache, which 'demonstrated that the two men shared a much closer, personal relationship than defendants acknowledged to the FCA and the public'. The case has been brought by US shareholders and owners of American depository receipts (ADRs), which give investors the chance to own and trade shares in foreign companies on US stock exchanges. They claim they were ultimately defrauded, having learned about the true nature of Staley and Epstein's relationship only after the FCA publicly released findings of its investigation and banned Staley from the City, in October 2023. The news caused the value of their shares and ADRs to drop, resulting in 'significant economic losses.' Staley had resigned from Barclays two years earlier in 2021 over preliminary findings from the FCA's investigation. 'When the FCA privately informed defendants of the outcome of its preliminary investigation, Staley left Barclays. Nevertheless, Barclays publicly continued to minimise the scope of the FCA's investigation into Staley's relationship with Epstein and voiced its support for its former CEO,' court filings by the plaintiffs state. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion That continued, they allege, after damaging details were revealed in a civil suit against JP Morgan, which was accused of banking Epstein while he was sex trafficking women and girls. While the cases were eventually settled, the class action says the evidence presented 'further exposed correspondence between Staley and Epstein that publicly revealed their relationship was more than merely professional – contrary to the assurances defendants made to investors in Barclays securities'. The filings cite the infamous exchange in which the pair refer to Disney princesses in July 2010. 'That was fun. Say hi to Snow White,' Staley wrote. 'What character would you like next?' Epstein asked, to which Staley replied: 'Beauty and the Beast.' The filing states: 'When defendants' deception of the FCA and investors was revealed, the price of Barclays Securities again fell, and investors were further economically damaged.' The plaintiffs are suing Barclays, Higgins and Staley for an unspecified amount, saying they want compensation for 'all damages sustained as a result of defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest'. They are also requesting that costs and expenses linked to the trial be covered, on top of 'such other relief as the court may deem just and proper'. The first scheduling hearing in this US class action case, which will start setting out a timetable and deadlines for the legal process, is due to take place on 14 August. A legal representative for Staley declined to comment. Barclays and Higgins declined to comment.
