The Ma Cookie Settlement fund was established based on a settlement agreement between defendants and class members. If the defendants are found to be at fault, the defendants will have to pay $18.4 million to class members who are validly enrolled in the class. For each valid claimant, the settlement amount will vary.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a revised class action settlement of the Google cookie tracking case. The settlement sought $5.5 million to settle allegations that the search engine giant secretly tracked online behavior. One objector argued that the funds should instead go to the named class representatives. The remaining class members were not allowed to opt out of the settlement and must still wait until July 7 to file their objections.
The FTC has launched a class action lawsuit against Google, claiming that the company was not following its promises to consumers about cookie tracking. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The FTC has ordered that Google implement comprehensive privacy protections for consumers, and it can face civil penalties if it fails to comply with these agreements.
Attorneys for the class action said the settlement fund is the largest privacy lawsuit filed against Google. The money will be used to fight privacy violations and help users make informed choices. The Arizona attorney general’s office and Gallagher & Kennedy, a Phoenix-based law firm, are representing the plaintiffs. The settlement fund will help fund Internet privacy initiatives, education, and broadband infrastructure. Google did not admit wrongdoing. It argued that the lawsuit was based on outdated policies.
During oral arguments, the Third Circuit judge argued that the District Court had failed to analyze the settlement thoroughly. He also argued that the proposed settlement was unfair and did not provide monetary relief to class members. As a result, he questioned the monetary value of the settlement and rejected the settlement.
The settlement fund represents a major setback for Google. The settlement amount is an enormous roadblock for the search giant and the tech industry. Nevertheless, it is the latest victory for the plaintiffs. Google has been forced to pay $90 million to a group of small developers in the US. The plaintiffs argued that the Google Play platform had forced them to pay a 30% fee for their apps.
Google agreed to a multimillion-dollar settlement in May. The final court hearing will determine if the settlement is adequate, fair, and reasonable. The lawsuit has already been settled in Illinois, but claims filed by residents of other states may be eligible for a portion of the money.
Lenny & Larry’s cookies
Last fall, Lenny & Larry’s settled a lawsuit over protein content in its cookies. The lawsuit alleged that the cookies only had four to nine grams of protein instead of the recommended sixteen grams. Despite the settlement, the case was scheduled for a fairness hearing this month. In the meantime, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch has urged the courts to reject the settlement deal.
In October 2018, the parties presented a preliminary settlement agreement to Judge Gettleman. The settlement included $350,000 in free cookies and an additional $1 million in attorney fees. The settlement would also award named plaintiffs $1,500 each, and the company would pay $350,000 to class members. However, the bulk of the settlement would go to free product given to retail partners.
The lawsuit filed in Illinois alleged that “The Complete Cookie” contains less protein than is advertised on the label. The lawsuit also asked for injunctive relief to correct the false advertising. Before Lenny & Larry’s could respond to the complaint, the parties settled the lawsuit. Lenny & Larry’s CEO has denied any wrongdoing.
The settlement fund will cover plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and court costs. The settlement is made under the conditions that Lenny & Larry’s must pay a settlement. The United States government has also objected to the settlement. However, the parties filed an amended settlement proposal in order to include more value for consumer plaintiffs. If you or a loved one has been harmed by a product containing a toxic chemical, you may be eligible for a settlement.
The DOJ has filed an objection to the settlement. The DOJ compared the settlement to a cy pres award. However, an attorney for Lenny & Larry’s called the DOJ’s filing moot and said both parties had been re-crafting the settlement in recent months. He said the high claims rate forced them to change the settlement amount.
Google’s “cookie placement” litigation
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a multimillion dollar settlement fund in a class action lawsuit against Google for its alleged infringement of consumer privacy. This case centers on how Google circumvented the privacy settings in some browsers to serve targeted advertisements to users.
EPIC filed an amicus brief to argue against the settlement fund. The organization argued that the parties’ representation of the proposed recipients as “limited sphere” of consumer privacy groups was incorrect. It also pointed to EPIC’s work with US PIRG and the Center for Digital Democracy to show that this was not the case.
The lawsuit claims that Google placed third-party cookies on the browsers of users of Apple’s Safari browser. This is a violation of the terms of privacy for Apple users. In addition, the company is accused of using Safari cookies to track users’ internet browsing activity, even if the user’s privacy settings are set to be private. In a settlement, Google agreed to remove third-party cookies from Safari users’ browsers. The settlement also requires Google to pay $5.5 million in attorney’s fees and incentive awards to named class representatives. The settlement fund will be distributed to educational and non-profit organizations.
The settlement fund is the result of numerous class action lawsuits filed against Google. The company was found guilty of violating the Federal Trade Commission’s regulations by installing third-party tracking cookies while consumers visited websites. This practice was deemed illegal by the FTC, which later fined the company a record $22.5 million for misleading consumers about the cookies it was placing on their computers.
The case moved forward in discovery and mediation, and the parties filed a proposed settlement with the lower court. The proposed settlement provided for the payment of $5.5 million to six non-profit organizations. This included the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. The settlement also contained assurances that Google would delete third-party cookies in Safari browsers.
Class action lawsuit against Mass General Brigham
A proposed class action lawsuit against Mass General Brigham, which was filed by retired employees, will now be settled. The suit claims that Mass General Brigham calculated retiree pension benefits with outdated life expectancy data. The health care system’s plan is one of the largest in the country. Plaintiffs contend that Mass General Brigham misled its fiduciaries about the plan’s investments and other fees.
The Mass General Brigham Corporation, formerly known as Partners HealthCare System, Inc., and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, settled the lawsuit in early 2018. The lawsuit alleges that Mass General used website analytics tools, cookies, pixels, and other technologies to collect personal information without the consent of the users. Despite the fact that the websites are public, Mass General Brigham did not require visitors to register.
MGH executives have repeatedly defended the practice of overlapping operations. They say they are an efficient way to use the best surgeons, freeing up attending surgeons to work on other cases. However, the practice has provoked national discussion in the medical community and spurred changes in Massachusetts regulation. The hospital now must notify patients when they plan to perform surgeries that overlap.
The case was filed in 2015 by Lisa Wollman, M.D., a former anesthesiologist. She alleged that overlapping procedures were billed to Medicare and Medicaid. This practice is common at teaching hospitals and allows more patients to receive care from top surgeons. In addition, CMS allows for the billing of overlapping surgeries as long as certain conditions are met.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Mass General Brigham’s COVID vaccine mandate. The employees’ lawsuit claimed that the hospital failed to consider their religious or medical objections when making health care decisions. While the hospital did not violate the AMA Code of Medical Ethics, it must still treat all patients equally, including those who are unvaccinated.
