Peloton Interactive Inc. is facing a proposed class action lawsuit in New York over its library of on-demand programs. According to the lawsuit, Peloton advertised to its potential purchasers continued growth of its program options but in March 2019, Peloton removed an estimated 12,000 on-demand programs. This was done after a lawsuit stemming from music publishers for non-licensed streaming rights in Peloton’s on-demand programming.

The lawsuit claims that Peloton knew of the potential removal of programs due to this lawsuit and continued marketing this growing programming. Additionally, they kept charging full price for the bicycle units and monthly subscription plans that contained some of the copyrighted music in the publishing lawsuit. A judge in New York stated that from April 2018 to March 2019 some customers could argue they overpaid Peloton because of their failure to disclose this removal potential and still charging full price.

The licensing lawsuit filed by the National Music Publishers’ Association and 14 of its members was settled in February 2020.

The case is Passman et al v. Peloton Interactive Inc., U.S. District court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 19-11711.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

A class action lawsuit recently filed by approximately 25,000 Disneyland employees claims the company is legally obligated to pay a living wage. The suit claims that employees, or sometimes referred to as “cast members,” are experiencing difficult living conditions due to the company’s low wages.

A survey of 5,000 cast members claims that homelessness, food insecurity, and lack of basic living expenses were pervasive. According to some employees, Disneyland schedules workers on a variety of shifts which makes securing a second job difficult.

The lawsuit alleges that due to Measure L, a measure passed in Anaheim, California in 2018, private businesses who take city subsidies must pay their employees a basic wage of $18 per hour by 2022, plus subsequent cost-of-living increases. Disneyland raised their basic wage at the time to $15 per hour.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

Twitter announced a $809.5 million settlement in a shareholder class action. The class action covers investors who purchased the stock from February 6, 2015 to July 28, 2015.

In 2016, shareholders alleged that Twitter artificially inflated its stock price in a class action lawsuit. The suit claims Twitter mislead the shareholders about user engagement by discounting reporting “timeline views” in 2014 and tried to downplay declining user engagements by modifying their user metrics. In turn, the suit alleges these actions caused the stock price inflation.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

Valve Corp. faces a class action lawsuit alleging that the company’s “loot boxes” simulate online gambling thereby taking advantage of minor children. The games associated with “loot boxes” included Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Defense of the Ancients 2 and Team Fortress 2.

The lawsuit further alleges that the failure to disclose this information to buyers and users are in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The case is G.G. et al. v. Valve Corp., case number 2:16-cv-01941, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

Apple Inc. is settling the AppleCare and AppleCare+ class action lawsuit for $95 million. The lawsuit alleged that Apple replaced covered products with remanufactured items and not brand new products.

The class plaintiffs alleged that the replaced items were not as advertised in the programs. The class consists of individuals who purchased either AppleCare or AppleCare+ directory or through an iPhone upgrade program on or after July 20, 2012 and received a remanufactured replacement device.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

A proposed class action was filed on behalf of a group of investors against the robo-advisor Charles Schwab Investment Advisory, a subsidiary of Charles Schwab Corp. The lawsuit alleges that the subsidiary made cash sweeps to Schwab which caused investors to lose out on portfolio growth. The complaint states these practices go back to 2015 and further alleges that Schwab derives a large percentage of their revenue from net interest margin on cash sweeps into Charles Schwab Bank. The cases was filed in the U.S. District Court in Northern California.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

A class action lawsuit has been filed by a resident of the Surfside, Florida, building that collapsed in the early morning of June 24, 2021 against the Champlain Towers South Building Association Inc. Parts of the Champlain Towers South building collapsed with approximately 55 units destroyed. As of today, approximately 150 people were still unaccounted for along with 12 deaths. 

The suit claims that the association was informed, had knowledge, or reasonably should have been aware that the building was unsafe leaving residents at risk. Further, the suit states a breach of contract claims for an agreement between the association and condominium owners stating which repairs and maintenance the association would maintain. The cause of the building collapse has still not been determined.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

A class action lawsuit has been filed against GOOP Inc., a modern lifestyle company owned by actress Gwyneth Paltrow. The complaint alleges that a specific GOOP branded candle sometimes explodes during normal use.

The complaint, filed in California, claims that the $75.00 candle was burned for three hours or less before it caught on fire with high flames. The complaint further alleges that consumers have had multiple similar experiences and that GOOP has not initiated a product recall. The suit also states the candle is still available on the company website.

The case is Colby Watson et al. v. Goop Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-04113, I the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

A California judge recently denied a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement in a Roundup class action. The denial order says the settlement was not reasonable for one group supposedly covered by the settlement; those who used Roundup and have not been diagnosed with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (“NHL”).

The court found that the proposed settlement would reduce or eliminate that group to seek appropriate damages if they should develop the disease. It would also require them to submit their claims to medical panels to decide whether Roundup was the direct cause should they develop the disease. The court said a new settlement proposal could be resubmitted if it “…reasonably protects the interests of Roundup users who have not been diagnosed with NHL…”

The case is Ramirez, et al. v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-02224, In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

A proposed class action against Costco Wholesale Corporation was filed regarding their Interstate-branded batteries. The complaint alleges that Costco provided a cash refund for the purchase price of the Interstate-branded car battery but also charged the price difference for the replacement battery. The complaint further states that consumers reasonably believed that the “Free Replacement Warranty” would, if the battery was defective and returned during the warranty period, be replaced at no additional cost.

The class, if approved, would encompass anyone who purchased an Interstate-branded battery that contained the “Free Replacement Warranty” at Costco in the United States who were not provided with a free replacement during their warranty period upon returning the defective battery.

The case is Skandrel v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No.: 9:21-cv-80826, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

Nestle Waters North America, Inc. is facing a potential class action in New York regarding its Poland Spring brand raspberry lime sparkling water. The lawsuit claims that the water contains very little, if any, real raspberry and lime ingredients.

The lawsuit claims that consumers could reasonably believe that the water would contain an actual amount of raspberry and lime as depicted on their labeling. The lawsuit also states that the labels “taste the real” display would also reasonably lead a consumer to believe there would be actual real raspberry and lime as opposed to the actual artificial ingredients.

The proposed class would be made up of all New York purchasers of the water. The lawsuit is Brandy Oldrey v. Nestle Waters North America Inc., Case No.: 7-21-cv-03885, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

If you were an investor in Peloton Interactive, Inc. securities between September 11, 2020 and May 5, 2021, the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP has filed a lawsuit and the lead plaintiff deadline for responses is due June 28, 2021.

The lawsuit stems from allegations that Peloton’s voluntary recall of its Tread+ and Tread treadmill machines over safety concerns adversely affected investors. The lawsuit alleges that Peloton’s Tread+ caused serious safety concerns to children and pets and that during the class period Peloton misled or failed to disclose such issues.  The Plaintiffs allege that these actions caused Peloton’s stocks to decline.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

check mark image with workersOregon Senator Jeff Merkley and U.S. Representative Bill Foster of Illinois introduced the Investor Choice Act earlier this month. The bill would prohibit broker dealers and investment advisors from forcing investors to agree to mandatory arbitration. The bill also prevents brokers dealers and investment advisors from forcing investors to waive the right to bring a class action lawsuit. The Senate’s version of the bill is available here

The North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) and Public Investors Advocate Bar Association (PIABA) endorsed the legislation. SEC Commission Chairman Gary Gensler said during his confirmation hearing that investors should be able to chose to go to court to resolve disputes.

Most agreements with individual investors in the financial services industry force customers into arbitration. Many investor advocates want investors to have the option of pursuing claims in court. Arbitration lacks the transparency of court and is sometimes cost prohibitive.

McGraw Hill LLC (“Company”) faces a potential class action lawsuit which alleges that authors who contributed to the Company’s textbooks had their royalties reduced when these textbooks were sold in electronic format. The complaint alleges that McGraw’s publishing agreement copyrights all author’s materials to the Company and then the Company publishes, sells and pays the authors a per-sale percentage royalty.

The complaint further states that on or about 2009, the Company instituted Connect, an online platform that distributes online textbooks. The complaint states that authors were paid for their online sales as a single unit until recently when the Company began paying only the contractually required royalties on the “textbook” portion of the sales price and not the “online” portion.

The case is Flynn et al. v. McGraw Hill LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00614, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!


Image of trading graphPopular online stock trading platform Robinhood announced on January 28, 2021, “In light of recent volatility, we are restricting transactions for certain securities to position closing only, including $AAL, $AMC, $BB, $BBBY, $CTRM, $EXPR, $GME, $KOSS, $NAKD, $NOK, $SNDL, $TR, and $TRVG. We also raised margin requirements for certain securities.” The decision to restrict trading has already led to multiple lawsuits against Robinhood by investors, including in connection with Robinhood’s new restrictions on trading Gamestop, Blackberry, Nokia, and AMC Theaters.  The Chicago Tribune reported that other brokerages, including Schwab, TD Ameritrade, and Interactive Brokers, also limited trading in certain stocks.  Robinhood’s decision drew attention from prominent politicians at both ends of the political spectrum including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC).  Then, Robinhood reversed course and lifted some of the trading restrictions it had just implemented.

Gamestop, in particular, gained attention in recent weeks as the price of its shares surged.  Forbes and other outlets reported that smaller investors drove the price increase as part of a “short squeeze.”  A short squeeze can occur when rapid increases in the price of a stock lead to short sellers (investors who have shorted a stock) covering their positions.  Covering requires buying shares of the stock, which in turn further increases the price.  The Guardian and others have reported that members of the reddit forum wallstreetbets helped drive the rapid increase in the price of Gamestop stock that in turn caused the short squeeze.

A federal class action was filed last week alleging that Wyndham Vacation Resorts Inc. used misleading information to entice plaintiffs to purchase timeshares. Plaintiffs allege that Wyndham is using long lasting sales meetings as well as omitting data about vacation options and overall costs as wells as misrepresentations.

Plaintiffs’ lawsuit states that non-members can book timeshares sometimes at a lower cost than owners and in a shorter timeframe. The suit also alleges that Wyndham failed to disclose during the sales presentations that bookings are to be made an entire year in advance and that chosen destinations are often unavailable.

Class members, if approved, are all persons who signed Wyndham timeshare agreements on or after January 27, 2016 in Florida, who attended a Wyndham sales presentation and for those how tried to cancel their contract but were unsuccessful.

The case is DuBose et al. v. Wyndham Vacation Resort Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01118, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

A class action lawsuit has been filed against the City of Portland, Oregon over the use of tear gas by police to disperse protesters rallying against police brutality. The complaint alleges the use of chemical agents violates protester’s constitutional rights and increases the risk of COVID-19 infections.

The suit was filed in Oregon federal court late Friday by two protesters along with social justice advocacy group Don’t Shoot Portland, and seeks to obtain a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction preventing police from using tear gas as a crowd control tactic.

The case is Don’t Shoot Portland et al. v. City of Portland, case number 3:20-cv-00917, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!


An Oregon federal court judge issued an Opinion on May 29, 2020 that the defendant, Ruby Receptionists, Inc., and defense counsel cannot communicate with the class members absent a prior court approval.

On April 24, 2020, the court certified a class action in this matter. Click here to learn more.

The case is McKenzie Law Firm et al. v. Ruby Receptionists, Inc., USDC D. OR, Case No. 3:18-cv-1921-SI. Stoll Berne attorneys Keith Dubanevich and Cody Berne represent the Plaintiffs and the Class.

The opinion can be read here.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!


A class action lawsuit has been filed against a New Jersey long-term care facility. The facility is facing more than $220,000 in fines from the state after an investigation.

The named plaintiff said her 75-year-old father died after contracting COVID-19 at the facility.

The lawsuit claims the facility “did not timely diagnose” residents and patients and “failed to properly treat their condition.” It also alleges management only provided masks to registered nurses and not other staff members who interacted with residents.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!


On April 24, 2020, an Oregon federal court certified a class of Ruby Receptionists’ customers in a case that arises from claims that the company misled its customers and breached its contracts by billing for time a call was on hold, and by rounding up every call resulting in overcharges.

The court stated that class eligibility includes:

“All persons or entities in the United States who obtained receptionist services from Defendant Ruby Receptionists between November 2, 2012 and May 31, 2018, pursuant to its form Services Agreement.”

Stoll Berne represents the Plaintiffs. The case is in McKenzie Law Firm et al. v. Ruby Receptionists, Inc., USDC D. OR, Case No. 3:18-cv-1921-SI. To read the Court’s opinion, click here. Law360 published an article on this certification and that can be found by clicking here. For more information, contact Stoll Berne attorneys Keith Dubanevich or Cody Berne.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!