A California woman has filed a federal class action lawsuit against Starbucks over its recent practice of hiding a $1.50 fee on small quantities of bulk coffee.

The Starbucks hidden coffee fee class action lawsuit was filed after Massachusetts authorities fined Starbucks for the fee, which was assessed on coffee purchases of less than a pound but not stated on customers’ receipts. Starbucks dropped the hidden fee last month.

“Customers were not given notice of such a fee prior to purchasing such bags of coffee, nor were they given notice after their purchase on their receipt,” the Starbucks coffee fee class action lawsuit states. “It was a completely undisclosed fee that unsuspecting customers were paying at stores around the country.”

In response to the Massachusetts fine, Starbucks claimed the fee was imposed to cover its labor expenses of having an employee break open a pre-sealed 1-pound bag to sell customers a portion size of their choosing. Starbucks would then charge the customer for the portion of beans, plus the roughly $1.50 fee for the extra labor and packaging.

Starbucks told The Associated Press it didn't sell many of these smaller packages and that it has not received complaints or faced fines until Massachusetts authorities fined the company $1,575. It's estimated about 75,000 Massachusetts residents had paid the fee.

Starbucks eliminated the surcharge at stores nationwide on November 7 after the Massachusetts fine.

The Starbucks hidden fee class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of a proposed class of all U.S. persons who purchased Starbucks coffee weighing less than one pound within the past four years. It is seeking certification, restitution and disgorgement, statutory damages, and more.

A copy of the Starbucks Hidden Coffee Fee Class Action Lawsuit can be read here.

The case is Bonnie Kurnick v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 11-cv-01985, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington.

A federal class action lawsuit claims Snapfish.com, owned by Hewlett-Packard, "has stolen money from its own customers" by sending their credit card information to a marketer who uses it to trick them into enrolling in a fee-based membership. 

 

Lead Plaintiff Carol Hill Castagnola alleges in the Snapfish class action lawsuit that Hewlett-Packard transfers its Snapfish customers' credit card information to Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore Marketing International, Inc. ("Regent"), which then uses the information, along with a misleading website, "to deceive Snapfish's customers into enrolling in a fee-based membership."

 

The deception is accomplished by leading customers through several checkout screens to make their purchase, the Snapfish class action lawsuit states. During the checkout process, customers are sent to a different website controlled by Regent without informing them.

 

"To the contrary, Regent designed its website to deceive consumers into believing they were still viewing the Snapfish website by displaying the Snapfish trademark and using the Snapfish layout and color scheme," the Snapfish.com class action lawsuit says.

 

Regent then offers a "$10 gift code" or other perk to entice consumers into joining the Snapfish Valuepass program.

 

"Only in small print, on the far left side of the Regent website, designed not to be noticed by the consumer, did the Regent website disclose that consumers would be charged a $1.95 activation fee and then billed $14.95 per month thereafter for the Snapfish Valuepass program."

 

The Snapfish class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons who were enrolled in the Snapfish Valuepass program after December 1, 2007. It is seeking restitution, costs, an injunction and Class damages for unfair and deceptive trade and business law violations.

 

A copy of the Hewlett-Packard Snapfish.com Class Action Lawsuit can be read here.

 

The case is Castagnola v. Hewlett-Packard Company d/b/a Snapfish.com, et al., Case No. 11-cv-5772, U.S. District Court Northern District of California.

Have you used Ticketmaster in the last 12 years? If so, you can file a claim to receive a share of a long-awaited class action settlement with Ticketmaster for charging excessive and deceptive processing fees.

 

The Ticketmaster settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit, entitled Curt Schlesinger, et al. v. Ticketmaster, that alleges Ticketmaster's Order Processing Fees and UPS Expedited Delivery prices of tickets are excessive and deceptive. 

 

The Ticketmaster class action lawsuit claims the company deceived and misled customers into believing that its Order Processing Fee was a pass-through of the amount that UPS charged Ticketmaster for that delivery when it was actually a profit generator for Ticketmaster. The Ticketmaster class action lawsuit also asserts that Ticketmaster's UPS delivery charges are excessive and deceptive.

 

Ticketmaster denies any wrongdoing but has agreed to settle the case to avoid ongoing litigation.

 

The Ticketmaster class action settlement includes all U.S. residents who purchased tickets on Ticketmaster.com between October 21, 1999 and October 19, 2011 and paid money to Ticketmaster for an Order Processing Fee (OPF) that was not refunded. It also includes a subclass of all Class Members who paid a delivery price for expedited delivery for their tickets via UPS.

 

The Ticketmaster fee settlement will provide discount codes that can be used for future purchases for U.S. events from Ticketmaster.com. For each transaction you made during the Class Period, you will receive one discount code via email for a $1.50 discount, up to a maximum of 17 codes. The codes may be combined up to a maximum of two credits ($3.00).

 

Class Members who also fall under the UPS Subclass will also receive one UPS code for $5.00 off expedited delivery fees on purchases from Ticektmaster.com for each transaction they made using UPS delivery of their tickets during the Class Period, up to 17 transactions.

 

All Class Members will automatically receive these benefits from the Ticketmaster fee class action settlement via email at the addresses associated with their Ticketmaster account if the settlement is approved at the May 29, 2012 Final Approval Hearing. If you have not received a Ticketmaster Class Action Settlement email yet and believe you are a Class Member, contact the Settlement Administrator at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. to update your email address.

 

The deadline to opt out of the Ticketmaster settlement is February 16, 2012.

 

More information on your rights in the Ticketmaster Fee Class Action Lawsuit Settlement can be found at www.TicketFeeLitigation.com. 

 

Best Buy has been hit with a class action lawsuit accusing the major retailer of violating the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act or "DPPA," a federal statute that protects the privacy of personal information assembled by DMVs.

 

The Best Buy class action lawsuit alleges the company has established a business practice of taking, storing, using and/or sharing customers' personal or highly restricted personal information, without consent, when customers make a normal return of Best Buy merchandise.

 

Their receipt indicates that Best Buy "tracks exchanges and returns ... and some of the information from your ID may be stored in a secure, encrypted database of customer activity that Best Buy and its affiliates use to track exchanges and returns," the class action lawsuit says.

 

The DPPA specifically prohibits Best Buy's conduct and was instituted to protect consumers from abuses such as identity theft and stalking, which can result when information such as a person's driver's license information is unsecured and improperly stored. The Best Buy DPPA class action lawsuit alleges that Best Buy's retention of data accessed on a driver's license is not "use in the normal course of business" as described by the DPPA.

 

The Best Buy DPPA class action lawsuit is seeking injunctive relief against Best Buy to immediately cease its invasive business practice of retaining customers' driver's license information.

 

"With the holiday season upon us, it is unknown how many Best Buy customers may have the security of their confidential information compromised, simply by returning a purchase," the lead attorney representing customers in the case commented.

 

The Best Buy Return Policy DPPA Class Action Lawsuit is Case No. 11-cv-81292-KLR, Southern District Court of Florida.

Associated Bank is the latest bank to reach a class action lawsuit settlement over charges it manipulated customers' debit card transactions and checking account deposits so it could deplete their accounts and trigger overdraft fees. 

 

According to the Associated Bank overdraft fee class action lawsuit, Associated Bank charged debit card users an overdraft fee of $37, regardless of the amount of the overdraft, and chose not to decline the transaction that would trigger the overdraft or inform customers that they were short of funds. The bank is also accused of failing to adequately disclose to its customers that they could opt out of overdraft protection.

 

Associated Bank is one of more than 30 banks accused in the multi-jurisdicational class action lawsuit, later consolidated in Florida federal court, of the overdraft fee violations. The case is In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation.

 

Associated Bank agreed to pay $13 million to settle its part in the bank overdraft fee class action litigation. Several other major banks, including Union Bank and Bank of America, have also reached class action settlements.

 

The Associated Bank overdraft fee class action settlement still needs final court approval before it becomes effective.

 

The case is In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-02036, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.

A class action lawsuit filed in Superior Court claims that Samsung plasma, liquid crystal display and digital TVs have defective capacitors that cause the TVs to prematurely fail.

According to the Samsung TV class action lawsuit, “The Televisions are defectively designed and/or use defective materials because normal operation and usage of the Televisions exposes the capacitors…to excessive heat and/or excessive voltage, which, in turn, causes the capacitors to fail.”

 

As a result, Samsung TVs fail before their expected useful life has expired.

The Samsung TV class action lawsuit further charges the company with knowing about the design defect but failing to recall the Televisions to fix the problem, and refusing to pay for labor or diagnostic expenses for consumers who’s TVs manifested the defect more than a year after purchase. As a result, consumers “have paid and continue to incur substantial parts and labor fees to repair their defectively designed Televisions,” the class action lawsuit states.

The Samsung TV class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all consumers who purchased a Samsung TV in California from January 1, 2006 to the present. It is seeking restitution, damages and other relief for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of warranty, and violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

A copy of the Samsung TV Defect Class Action Lawsuit can be read here.

The case is James Keeley v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 37-2011-00101584-CU-MT-CTL.

A class action lawsuit filed in Superior Court claims Blue Cross of California (doing business as Anthem Blue Cross) uses “bait and switch tactics” to impose midyear hikes of 20 percent or more on its customers – often just two months into the deductible year. This constitutes a breach of contract, according to the class action lawsuit.

 

Named Plaintiff Janet Kassouf says in the Anthem Blue Cross class action lawsuit that she bought a policy with the expectation that annual deductibles and out-of-pockets costs would be fixed for the calendar year. However, “just two months into the deductible year,” Kassouf learned her deductible would go up $450 from $2,500 to $2,950, the complaint states. Kassouf is just one of several named Plaintiffs who are alleging they were victims of Anthem Blue Cross's "bait and switch tactics."

"When a consumer purchases a plan with an annual deductible of $2,500, the consumer expects he or she will have to pay for the first $2,500 in health care services during the calendar year, and that the insurer will cover the remaining costs of health coverage according to the terms of the plan contract," the Anthem Blue Cross class action lawsuit states. "Blue Cross's unilateral changes to the annual deductible at whim, however, have resulted in a moving target without any certainty of how much a consumer will have to pay to meet the deductible in any given calendar year."

The Anthem Blue Cross class action lawsuit continues:

"In addition to unilaterally raising the annual deductible and other out-of-pocket costs while escalating premiums, Blue Cross has made other unilateral changes to its individual plan contracts. For example, Blue Cross recently notified policyholders that it was reducing the policy term to just one month, which would purportedly allow Blue Cross to modify any 'terms and conditions' of the individual plan contracts, including deductibles and other out of pocket costs, at each contract 'renewal' on sixty days’ notice - or up to six times per year.
    
"Through its conduct of unilaterally escalating annual out of pocket costs and unilaterally altering coverage descriptions ... to allow Blue Cross to change any benefit on just sixty days’ notice, Blue Cross has breached the individual plan contracts entered into with plaintiffs and California consumers and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing."

The Anthem Blue Cross class action lawsuit is seeking damages for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law.

The USDA is reminding African American farmers and ranchers that the claims filing period for the Pigford II settlement has opened. Eligible farmers and ranchers have until May 11, 2012 to file a claim.

The Pigford II class action settlement arises from a class action lawsuit against USDA that alleges the Department discriminated against African-Americans who applied for or attempted to apply for farm loans or other farm benefits between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1996. The settlement applies only to African-American farmers who meet specific eligibility requirements, including the requirement that they previously submitted a request to file a late claim in the 1999 Pigford I class action Consent Decree.

The historic Pigford II class action settlement will provide $1.25 billion to African American farmers and ranchers who were discriminated against by the USDA.

The filing period for the Pigford II class action settlement opened November 14, 2011 and continues for 180 days, until May 11, 2012.

"With the opening of the claims process, African American farmers and ranchers who believe they are entitled to compensation under the Pigford II settlement must file a claim within 180 days in order to receive cash payment or loan forgiveness," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "The opening of this claims process marks another milestone in USDA's efforts to correct the wrongs of the past and ensure fair treatment to all current and future customers."

To file a claim under the Pigford settlement, claimants must first register for a claims package by calling (877) 810-8110 or by visiting www.blackfarmercase.com. Once a claims package is received in the mail, it must be completed and submitted no later than May 11, 2012.

For more information on your rights in the Pigford II class action settlement, visit www.blackfarmercase.com.